Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

SubjectAuthor
* Blocking/ignoring your reviewersMr Flibble
`* Blocking/ignoring your reviewers [ Flibble is clueless about software engineerinolcott
 `* Blocking/ignoring your reviewers [ Olcott is clueless aboutMr Flibble
  `* Blocking/ignoring your reviewers [ Olcott Ignores Trolls ]olcott
   +* Olcott LiesRichard Damon
   |`* Olcott Ignores Trollsolcott
   | +* Olcott Is A NutterMr Flibble
   | |`* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | | `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |  `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   +* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |+* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   ||+- Olcott is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   ||`* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   || `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   ||  `* Olcott is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   ||   `* Olcott is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   ||    `- Olcott is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |`* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   | +* Olcott is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   | |`* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   | | `- Olcott is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   | `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |  `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   |   +* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |   |`* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   |   | `- Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |   `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMikko
   | |   |    +* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    |`* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | +* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | |`* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | | `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | |  `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | |   `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | |    `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | |     `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | |      `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | |       `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | |        `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | |         `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | |          `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | |           +* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | |           |`* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | |           | `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | |           |  `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | |           |   `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | |           |    `- Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    | |           `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringAndy Walker
   | |   |    | |            `- Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    | `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringBen Bacarisse
   | |   |    |  +* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringMr Flibble
   | |   |    |  |`* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringBen Bacarisse
   | |   |    |  | `- Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   |    |  `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringolcott
   | |   |    |   `- Flibble is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | |   |    `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders calledolcott
   | |   |     `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called in infinite recMikko
   | |   |      `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders calledolcott
   | |   |       `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders calledRichard Damon
   | |   |        `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders calledolcott
   | |   |         `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders calledRichard Damon
   | |   |          `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders calledolcott
   | |   |           `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders calledRichard Damon
   | |   |            `* Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders calledolcott
   | |   |             `- Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders calledRichard Damon
   | |   `- Olcott is incompetent at software engineeringRichard Damon
   | `- Olcott LIesRichard Damon
   `* Blocking/ignoring your reviewers [ Olcott Ignores Trolls ]Jeff Barnett
    `* Blocking/ignoring your reviewers [ Olcott Ignores Trolls ]olcott
     +- Olcott doesn't know what he is talking aboutRichard Damon
     `- Blocking/ignoring your reviewers [ Olcott Ignores Trolls ]Jeff Barnett

Pages:123
Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38698&group=comp.theory#38698

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<_oqdnaam35-40Jf-nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220827181237.00007160@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4425
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:06 UTC

On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic Theory.
>>
>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a solution to that
>> alternate problem, but it becomes a lie to imply that your solution
>> applies to the original classical problem.
>>
>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition, which is
>> presumed by people when you just say "The Halting Problem".
>>
>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful person by
>> implying something that isn't true, or be careful enough to make
>> yourself clear.
>>
>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended Halting
>> Problem", and you won't get complaints of being deceitful.
>>
>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although in his
>> case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS tried to extend the
>> definition to something different, and thus gets stuck in lie loops.
>
> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that definitions
> and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense: this certainly isn't how
> science is supposed to work. Science deals with moving targets as
> unlike with mathematical theories no scientific theory can be proven,
> only falsified. So the question ultimately becomes is the Halting
> Problem a mathematical problem or a computer science problem? If the
> latter then my approach is perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
>
> /Flibble
>

Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.

Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can totally break
a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING that was done based on
the old definition to see if it still holds, or how it changes.

Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an ambiguity
or loophole in the definition if reviewing what changed can be easily done.

A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove restrictions or
increase the guaranteed results as that can't cause a backwards
compatibility issue.

"Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the old.
Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just pointed out the
limitations of them and showed how to handle cases that they couldn't.

As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is YES,
because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and is thus
different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that aren't (but use a
lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical "Sciences" do deal with "Proofs".

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called in infinite recursion ]

<RNqdnfvtZvWpPpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38699&group=comp.theory#38699

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:17:40 +0000
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 12:17:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called
in infinite recursion ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<_oqdnaam35-40Jf-nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220827181237.00007160@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<QDudnScqsd_U-Jb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <teg0b7$l9qs$1@dont-email.me>
<sHWdnbnZ1rd5Fpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<l_MOK.951450$wIO9.474639@fx12.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <l_MOK.951450$wIO9.474639@fx12.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <RNqdnfvtZvWpPpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 63
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-FvaOae/IRX/31DLGNJUgMwZM/SUQK6dEF037jLnSvOeymvDlaWMXiWx9V5KFYpLuPjM6r432yUYPL7c!DdDaxeIYGz+sYmu1xqtU4g2PWxBglpeKrZptXC+r+ikk+LimKdMfssXAshYmVQELvirzBwmhv5E=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
 by: olcott - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:17 UTC

On 8/28/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/28/22 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/28/2022 10:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2022-08-28 12:53:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-08-27 19:26:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When any system of axioms has a pair of axioms that contradict
>>>>>> each other at most one of these axioms is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) Deciders must always return to their caller.
>>>>>> (b) No function called in infinite recursion returns to its caller.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although not formally worng, it is not a good style to have axioms
>>>>> that can be proven. Above (a) is a consequence of the definition
>>>>> of "decider" and (b) is a consequence of the definition "infinite
>>>>> recursion". As both are proven neither one is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When deciders are called in infinite recursion we have
>>>>>> contradictory axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the "axioms" are not contradictory, as both are proven. But a
>>>>> provable consequence is that nothing in an infinite recursion is
>>>>> a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A decider called in infinite recursion can correctly determine that
>>>> it was called in infinite recursion and can return to some caller
>>>> yet this simply doesn't count because it is against the rules.
>>>
>>> If a "decider" is called in infinite recursion it does not return
>>> and therefore is not a decider.
>>
>>
>> That is not true in my case.
>>
>> In my case the decider does return to main() yet does not return to
>> P() thus does not always return to every caller. The decider does not
>> return to P() because it is never invoked in P(), P() is aborted by
>> H() before H(P,P) is invoked in P().
>>
>
> Except it DOES return to P, if that P is called by Main and not
> simulated by H.
>

H aborts its simulation of P as soon as it sees that P would invoke
H(P,P) before this invocation is actually executed.

The rule that a decider must return to every caller does not stipulate
that this call must be executed, thus H must return to the simulated P
even though P's call to H is never actually executed.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38700&group=comp.theory#38700

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Message-ID: <20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<_oqdnaam35-40Jf-nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220827181237.00007160@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 77
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:20:03 UTC
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:20:03 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 5038
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:20 UTC

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic Theory.
> >>
> >> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a solution to
> >> that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie to imply that your
> >> solution applies to the original classical problem.
> >>
> >> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition, which
> >> is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting Problem".
> >>
> >> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful person by
> >> implying something that isn't true, or be careful enough to make
> >> yourself clear.
> >>
> >> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended Halting
> >> Problem", and you won't get complaints of being deceitful.
> >>
> >> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although in his
> >> case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS tried to extend the
> >> definition to something different, and thus gets stuck in lie
> >> loops.
> >
> > What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
> > definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense: this
> > certainly isn't how science is supposed to work. Science deals
> > with moving targets as unlike with mathematical theories no
> > scientific theory can be proven, only falsified. So the question
> > ultimately becomes is the Halting Problem a mathematical problem or
> > a computer science problem? If the latter then my approach is
> > perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
>
> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can totally
> break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING that was done
> based on the old definition to see if it still holds, or how it
> changes.
>
> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what changed can
> be easily done.
>
> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove restrictions or
> increase the guaranteed results as that can't cause a backwards
> compatibility issue.
>
> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the old.
> Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just pointed out
> the limitations of them and showed how to handle cases that they
> couldn't.
>
> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is YES,
> because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and is thus
> different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that aren't (but use
> a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical "Sciences" do deal with
> "Proofs".

Agree.

Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem of the
contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than the
far more important *general* problem of determining if a
particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet to be
convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I maintain that
the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red herring.

/Flibble

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38701&group=comp.theory#38701

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx18.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<_oqdnaam35-40Jf-nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220827181237.00007160@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6217
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:33 UTC

On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic Theory.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a solution to
>>>> that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie to imply that your
>>>> solution applies to the original classical problem.
>>>>
>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition, which
>>>> is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting Problem".
>>>>
>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful person by
>>>> implying something that isn't true, or be careful enough to make
>>>> yourself clear.
>>>>
>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended Halting
>>>> Problem", and you won't get complaints of being deceitful.
>>>>
>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although in his
>>>> case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS tried to extend the
>>>> definition to something different, and thus gets stuck in lie
>>>> loops.
>>>
>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
>>> definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense: this
>>> certainly isn't how science is supposed to work. Science deals
>>> with moving targets as unlike with mathematical theories no
>>> scientific theory can be proven, only falsified. So the question
>>> ultimately becomes is the Halting Problem a mathematical problem or
>>> a computer science problem? If the latter then my approach is
>>> perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
>>
>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can totally
>> break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING that was done
>> based on the old definition to see if it still holds, or how it
>> changes.
>>
>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
>> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what changed can
>> be easily done.
>>
>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove restrictions or
>> increase the guaranteed results as that can't cause a backwards
>> compatibility issue.
>>
>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the old.
>> Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just pointed out
>> the limitations of them and showed how to handle cases that they
>> couldn't.
>>
>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is YES,
>> because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and is thus
>> different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that aren't (but use
>> a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical "Sciences" do deal with
>> "Proofs".
>
> Agree.
>
> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
> uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem of the
> contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than the
> far more important *general* problem of determining if a
> particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet to be
> convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I maintain that
> the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red herring.
>
> /Flibble
>

No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century ago as
people were trying to figure out what was actually able to be done with
finite work (Computability). Showing that not all attributes are
computable established that there WERE limits to computations, and by
some simple extensions, provability in logic.

The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific "Impossible
Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery of it that established
the limitation that we know today.

The impossible program is just an example of a particular program with a
particular input. It should be noted that it isn't the ONLY sort of
program that can't be decided on, it is just a simple enough one that
the proof that it can't be decided on is simple enough for most people
to understand. There are many other very different programs that also
can not be decided if they halt or not by a computation.

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called in infinite recursion ]

<bQNOK.1191830$X_i.531312@fx18.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38702&group=comp.theory#38702

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx18.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called
in infinite recursion ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<_oqdnaam35-40Jf-nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220827181237.00007160@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<QDudnScqsd_U-Jb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <teg0b7$l9qs$1@dont-email.me>
<sHWdnbnZ1rd5Fpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<l_MOK.951450$wIO9.474639@fx12.iad>
<RNqdnfvtZvWpPpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <RNqdnfvtZvWpPpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <bQNOK.1191830$X_i.531312@fx18.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:44:39 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5477
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:44 UTC

On 8/28/22 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/28/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/28/22 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/28/2022 10:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2022-08-28 12:53:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-08-27 19:26:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When any system of axioms has a pair of axioms that contradict
>>>>>>> each other at most one of these axioms is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) Deciders must always return to their caller.
>>>>>>> (b) No function called in infinite recursion returns to its caller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although not formally worng, it is not a good style to have axioms
>>>>>> that can be proven. Above (a) is a consequence of the definition
>>>>>> of "decider" and (b) is a consequence of the definition "infinite
>>>>>> recursion". As both are proven neither one is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When deciders are called in infinite recursion we have
>>>>>>> contradictory axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the "axioms" are not contradictory, as both are proven. But a
>>>>>> provable consequence is that nothing in an infinite recursion is
>>>>>> a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A decider called in infinite recursion can correctly determine that
>>>>> it was called in infinite recursion and can return to some caller
>>>>> yet this simply doesn't count because it is against the rules.
>>>>
>>>> If a "decider" is called in infinite recursion it does not return
>>>> and therefore is not a decider.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is not true in my case.
>>>
>>> In my case the decider does return to main() yet does not return to
>>> P() thus does not always return to every caller. The decider does not
>>> return to P() because it is never invoked in P(), P() is aborted by
>>> H() before H(P,P) is invoked in P().
>>>
>>
>> Except it DOES return to P, if that P is called by Main and not
>> simulated by H.
>>
>
> H aborts its simulation of P as soon as it sees that P would invoke
> H(P,P) before this invocation is actually executed.

Which means that P(P) actually will return in finite time, so H is wrong.

>
> The rule that a decider must return to every caller does not stipulate
> that this call must be executed, thus H must return to the simulated P
> even though P's call to H is never actually executed.
>

Since H aborted the simulation of its input, it will not reach that
point in the simulation, but the COMPLETE simulation of that input WOULD
reach the point where it returns.

What is wrong with that? You seem to confuse the behavior seen in a
partial simulation with the behavior seen in a complete simulation.

The issue is that H is INCORRECT in determining that the call to H(P,P)
by P(P) will not return, because it turns out that H assumes INCORRECTLY
that it will not return and thus aborts its simulation making the REAL
BEHAAVIOR be to return.

The ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the ACTUAL INPUT is what happens when we actually
run the code, and that is that P(P) will Halt becuase H(P,P) will return
0 because H makes the mistake of assuming at some point that it won't.

The whole problem goes back to your INCORRECT statement that H can use
this illogical statement of looking at the behavior of a diffferent (but
related) H, and assume that the input is calling that other function.

That latter part is where H makes its mistake, P calles that H that does
the abort, so H can't presume that H doesn't abort, and still be looking
at the acutal behavior of the actual input.

The fact that there is no way to computationally do this in all cases is
what makes Halting not computable.

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called in infinite recursion ]

<Ii6dnVT4KJGPMZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38703&group=comp.theory#38703

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:55:30 +0000
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 12:55:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called
in infinite recursion ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<_oqdnaam35-40Jf-nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220827181237.00007160@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<QDudnScqsd_U-Jb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <teg0b7$l9qs$1@dont-email.me>
<sHWdnbnZ1rd5Fpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<l_MOK.951450$wIO9.474639@fx12.iad>
<RNqdnfvtZvWpPpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<bQNOK.1191830$X_i.531312@fx18.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <bQNOK.1191830$X_i.531312@fx18.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Ii6dnVT4KJGPMZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 100
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QM1NhOxdpLGDnFARqh2XArFTFgs1lO8A7UVax3lCpR8nUWTScwcDuJyqv4n1qnLPQ93g/0LtAM2UiLo!h6X8SldB9kcjtElmxK4hy+M3p9fQJqKxHzjAohzzL9UgwzpQGhYIj5zXU3CxMoAzGfIRSfYvAY0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
 by: olcott - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:55 UTC

On 8/28/2022 12:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/28/22 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/28/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/28/22 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/28/2022 10:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-08-28 12:53:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-08-27 19:26:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When any system of axioms has a pair of axioms that contradict
>>>>>>>> each other at most one of these axioms is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) Deciders must always return to their caller.
>>>>>>>> (b) No function called in infinite recursion returns to its caller.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although not formally worng, it is not a good style to have axioms
>>>>>>> that can be proven. Above (a) is a consequence of the definition
>>>>>>> of "decider" and (b) is a consequence of the definition "infinite
>>>>>>> recursion". As both are proven neither one is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When deciders are called in infinite recursion we have
>>>>>>>> contradictory axioms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the "axioms" are not contradictory, as both are proven. But a
>>>>>>> provable consequence is that nothing in an infinite recursion is
>>>>>>> a decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A decider called in infinite recursion can correctly determine
>>>>>> that it was called in infinite recursion and can return to some
>>>>>> caller yet this simply doesn't count because it is against the rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a "decider" is called in infinite recursion it does not return
>>>>> and therefore is not a decider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not true in my case.
>>>>
>>>> In my case the decider does return to main() yet does not return to
>>>> P() thus does not always return to every caller. The decider does
>>>> not return to P() because it is never invoked in P(), P() is aborted
>>>> by H() before H(P,P) is invoked in P().
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except it DOES return to P, if that P is called by Main and not
>>> simulated by H.
>>>
>>
>> H aborts its simulation of P as soon as it sees that P would invoke
>> H(P,P) before this invocation is actually executed.
>
> Which means that P(P) actually will return in finite time, so H is wrong.
>
>>
>> The rule that a decider must return to every caller does not stipulate
>> that this call must be executed, thus H must return to the simulated P
>> even though P's call to H is never actually executed.
>>
>
> Since H aborted the simulation of its input, it will not reach that
> point in the simulation, but the COMPLETE simulation of that input WOULD
> reach the point where it returns.
>
In other words you are saying that infinite recursion eventually stops
if you simply wait long enough.

void Px(ptr x)
{ H(x, x);
return;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H(Px, Px));
}

H(Px,Px) simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)...

Eventually some magic happens so that P rewrites its own machine code
(It has to be actual magic because P does not have any code that would
rewrite its machine code) so that Px stops calling H(Px,Px), then Px
reaches its returns instruction.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called in infinite recursion ]

<uaOOK.897566$ssF.449038@fx14.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38704&group=comp.theory#38704

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx14.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called
in infinite recursion ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<_oqdnaam35-40Jf-nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220827181237.00007160@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<QDudnScqsd_U-Jb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <teg0b7$l9qs$1@dont-email.me>
<sHWdnbnZ1rd5Fpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<l_MOK.951450$wIO9.474639@fx12.iad>
<RNqdnfvtZvWpPpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<bQNOK.1191830$X_i.531312@fx18.iad>
<Ii6dnVT4KJGPMZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Ii6dnVT4KJGPMZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <uaOOK.897566$ssF.449038@fx14.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 14:08:25 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7148
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:08 UTC

On 8/28/22 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/28/2022 12:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/28/22 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/28/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/28/22 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/28/2022 10:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-08-28 12:53:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-27 19:26:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When any system of axioms has a pair of axioms that contradict
>>>>>>>>> each other at most one of these axioms is correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) Deciders must always return to their caller.
>>>>>>>>> (b) No function called in infinite recursion returns to its
>>>>>>>>> caller.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although not formally worng, it is not a good style to have axioms
>>>>>>>> that can be proven. Above (a) is a consequence of the definition
>>>>>>>> of "decider" and (b) is a consequence of the definition "infinite
>>>>>>>> recursion". As both are proven neither one is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When deciders are called in infinite recursion we have
>>>>>>>>> contradictory axioms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, the "axioms" are not contradictory, as both are proven. But a
>>>>>>>> provable consequence is that nothing in an infinite recursion is
>>>>>>>> a decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A decider called in infinite recursion can correctly determine
>>>>>>> that it was called in infinite recursion and can return to some
>>>>>>> caller yet this simply doesn't count because it is against the
>>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a "decider" is called in infinite recursion it does not return
>>>>>> and therefore is not a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not true in my case.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my case the decider does return to main() yet does not return to
>>>>> P() thus does not always return to every caller. The decider does
>>>>> not return to P() because it is never invoked in P(), P() is
>>>>> aborted by H() before H(P,P) is invoked in P().
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except it DOES return to P, if that P is called by Main and not
>>>> simulated by H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> H aborts its simulation of P as soon as it sees that P would invoke
>>> H(P,P) before this invocation is actually executed.
>>
>> Which means that P(P) actually will return in finite time, so H is wrong.
>>
>>>
>>> The rule that a decider must return to every caller does not
>>> stipulate that this call must be executed, thus H must return to the
>>> simulated P even though P's call to H is never actually executed.
>>>
>>
>> Since H aborted the simulation of its input, it will not reach that
>> point in the simulation, but the COMPLETE simulation of that input
>> WOULD reach the point where it returns.
>>
> In other words you are saying that infinite recursion eventually stops
> if you simply wait long enough.

No, but since *THIS* H was defined so that it aborts at the call to
H(Px,Px) from Px, that no infinite recursion actually exists.

H needs to decide on the program it is given, which includes the version
of H it is calling.

The ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the ACTUAL INPUT is:

(1) Px(Px) calls
(2) H(Px,Px) which simulates
(3) Px(Px) which it simulates to calling
(4) H(Px,Px)
(5) At this point (2) H(Px,Px) aborts its simulation and returns to (1)
(6) The (1) Px(Px) getting an answer from (2) H(Px,Px) then Halts.

Ergo, obviously NO actual infinite recursion for this H.

H(Px,Px) is DEFINED to be asking about Px(Px), otherwise your claim that
P is the impossible program is a lie, as it calls H(P,P) to decide on
P(P), by DEFINITION, so it must mean that.

>
> void Px(ptr x)
> {
>   H(x, x);
>   return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H(Px, Px));
> }
>
> H(Px,Px) simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
> that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
> that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
> that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
> that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)
> that simulates Px(Px) that calls a simulated H(Px,Px)...
>
> Eventually some magic happens so that P rewrites its own machine code
> (It has to be actual magic because P does not have any code that would
> rewrite its machine code) so that Px stops calling H(Px,Px), then Px
> reaches its returns instruction.
>

Nope, because that isn't the behavior that your H actually does (see above)

It is only what H THINKS its behavior is, which is wrong, so H gets the
wrong answer.

Please point out where I am making a mistake based on the code you have
ACTUALLY delivered.

Yes, different implementation of H will be slightly different, you older
code, that you now call HH went an additional time through the loop.

You also have talked about an H that actually doesn't abort, but that H
never returns an answer so isn't a counter example either, even if it is
the H that all your H's seem to be assuming the input calls (which they
don't).

THAT H does act the way you have described, EXCEPT it never gets to the
point of deciding to abort, so even though in THIS ONE CASE, non-halting
would be the right answer, it can never give it.

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called in infinite recursion ]

<6Eudne9yD4OuLZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38705&group=comp.theory#38705

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:13:07 +0000
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:13:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called
in infinite recursion ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<20220827181237.00007160@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<QDudnScqsd_U-Jb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <teg0b7$l9qs$1@dont-email.me>
<sHWdnbnZ1rd5Fpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<l_MOK.951450$wIO9.474639@fx12.iad>
<RNqdnfvtZvWpPpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<bQNOK.1191830$X_i.531312@fx18.iad>
<Ii6dnVT4KJGPMZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<uaOOK.897566$ssF.449038@fx14.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <uaOOK.897566$ssF.449038@fx14.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <6Eudne9yD4OuLZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 90
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ACC8wRvDydr1O7tTWio7MS24IQhTBDH9D50d0U72wgC5t6/kLP7f8Q0NNRCGKm4Ry6LpxFUXuN9WbSy!k3GFbN43/PKcIfkVb7squAewJ4YrtIIZyOcHatteFCrvWXhXIG+2pZR0Vf4OtGhRuQn0S5MqDCQ=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
 by: olcott - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:13 UTC

On 8/28/2022 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/28/22 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/28/2022 12:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/28/22 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/28/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/28/22 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/28/2022 10:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-08-28 12:53:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-27 19:26:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When any system of axioms has a pair of axioms that contradict
>>>>>>>>>> each other at most one of these axioms is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (a) Deciders must always return to their caller.
>>>>>>>>>> (b) No function called in infinite recursion returns to its
>>>>>>>>>> caller.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Although not formally worng, it is not a good style to have axioms
>>>>>>>>> that can be proven. Above (a) is a consequence of the definition
>>>>>>>>> of "decider" and (b) is a consequence of the definition "infinite
>>>>>>>>> recursion". As both are proven neither one is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When deciders are called in infinite recursion we have
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory axioms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, the "axioms" are not contradictory, as both are proven. But a
>>>>>>>>> provable consequence is that nothing in an infinite recursion is
>>>>>>>>> a decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A decider called in infinite recursion can correctly determine
>>>>>>>> that it was called in infinite recursion and can return to some
>>>>>>>> caller yet this simply doesn't count because it is against the
>>>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a "decider" is called in infinite recursion it does not return
>>>>>>> and therefore is not a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not true in my case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my case the decider does return to main() yet does not return
>>>>>> to P() thus does not always return to every caller. The decider
>>>>>> does not return to P() because it is never invoked in P(), P() is
>>>>>> aborted by H() before H(P,P) is invoked in P().
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except it DOES return to P, if that P is called by Main and not
>>>>> simulated by H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> H aborts its simulation of P as soon as it sees that P would invoke
>>>> H(P,P) before this invocation is actually executed.
>>>
>>> Which means that P(P) actually will return in finite time, so H is
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The rule that a decider must return to every caller does not
>>>> stipulate that this call must be executed, thus H must return to the
>>>> simulated P even though P's call to H is never actually executed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since H aborted the simulation of its input, it will not reach that
>>> point in the simulation, but the COMPLETE simulation of that input
>>> WOULD reach the point where it returns.
>>>
>> In other words you are saying that infinite recursion eventually stops
>> if you simply wait long enough.
>
> No, but since *THIS* H was defined so that it aborts at the call to
> H(Px,Px) from Px, that no infinite recursion actually exists.
>

Let's get back to the point of this thread. Does a decider have to
return a value from a function call that was never executed?

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38706&group=comp.theory#38706

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Message-ID: <20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 127
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:19:01 UTC
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:19:01 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 7637
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:19 UTC

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic
> >>>> Theory.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a solution to
> >>>> that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie to imply that your
> >>>> solution applies to the original classical problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition, which
> >>>> is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting Problem".
> >>>>
> >>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful person by
> >>>> implying something that isn't true, or be careful enough to make
> >>>> yourself clear.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended
> >>>> Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints of being
> >>>> deceitful.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although in his
> >>>> case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS tried to extend
> >>>> the definition to something different, and thus gets stuck in lie
> >>>> loops.
> >>>
> >>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
> >>> definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense: this
> >>> certainly isn't how science is supposed to work. Science deals
> >>> with moving targets as unlike with mathematical theories no
> >>> scientific theory can be proven, only falsified. So the question
> >>> ultimately becomes is the Halting Problem a mathematical problem
> >>> or a computer science problem? If the latter then my approach is
> >>> perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
> >>
> >> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can totally
> >> break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING that was done
> >> based on the old definition to see if it still holds, or how it
> >> changes.
> >>
> >> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
> >> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what changed
> >> can be easily done.
> >>
> >> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove restrictions or
> >> increase the guaranteed results as that can't cause a backwards
> >> compatibility issue.
> >>
> >> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the old.
> >> Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just pointed out
> >> the limitations of them and showed how to handle cases that they
> >> couldn't.
> >>
> >> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is YES,
> >> because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and is thus
> >> different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that aren't (but
> >> use a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical "Sciences" do deal with
> >> "Proofs".
> >
> > Agree.
> >
> > Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
> > uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem of the
> > contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than the
> > far more important *general* problem of determining if a
> > particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet to be
> > convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I maintain
> > that the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red herring.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century ago as
> people were trying to figure out what was actually able to be done
> with finite work (Computability). Showing that not all attributes are
> computable established that there WERE limits to computations, and by
> some simple extensions, provability in logic.
>
> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific "Impossible
> Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery of it that
> established the limitation that we know today.
>
> The impossible program is just an example of a particular program
> with a particular input. It should be noted that it isn't the ONLY
> sort of program that can't be decided on, it is just a simple enough
> one that the proof that it can't be decided on is simple enough for
> most people to understand. There are many other very different
> programs that also can not be decided if they halt or not by a
> computation.

Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting Problem which
explicitly defines it to be based on the "Impossible Program"
contradiction:

"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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve
the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.

For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of what
f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case. A key part
of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer and program,
which is known as a Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable
over Turing machines. It is one of the first cases of decision problems
proven to be unsolvable. This proof is significant to practical
computing efforts, defining a class of applications which no
programming invention can possibly perform perfectly."

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

/Flibble

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38710&group=comp.theory#38710

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx18.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8352
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:18 UTC

On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic
>>>>>> Theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a solution to
>>>>>> that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie to imply that your
>>>>>> solution applies to the original classical problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition, which
>>>>>> is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting Problem".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful person by
>>>>>> implying something that isn't true, or be careful enough to make
>>>>>> yourself clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended
>>>>>> Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints of being
>>>>>> deceitful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although in his
>>>>>> case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS tried to extend
>>>>>> the definition to something different, and thus gets stuck in lie
>>>>>> loops.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
>>>>> definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense: this
>>>>> certainly isn't how science is supposed to work. Science deals
>>>>> with moving targets as unlike with mathematical theories no
>>>>> scientific theory can be proven, only falsified. So the question
>>>>> ultimately becomes is the Halting Problem a mathematical problem
>>>>> or a computer science problem? If the latter then my approach is
>>>>> perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
>>>>
>>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can totally
>>>> break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING that was done
>>>> based on the old definition to see if it still holds, or how it
>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
>>>> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what changed
>>>> can be easily done.
>>>>
>>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove restrictions or
>>>> increase the guaranteed results as that can't cause a backwards
>>>> compatibility issue.
>>>>
>>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the old.
>>>> Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just pointed out
>>>> the limitations of them and showed how to handle cases that they
>>>> couldn't.
>>>>
>>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is YES,
>>>> because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and is thus
>>>> different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that aren't (but
>>>> use a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical "Sciences" do deal with
>>>> "Proofs".
>>>
>>> Agree.
>>>
>>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
>>> uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem of the
>>> contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than the
>>> far more important *general* problem of determining if a
>>> particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet to be
>>> convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I maintain
>>> that the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red herring.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century ago as
>> people were trying to figure out what was actually able to be done
>> with finite work (Computability). Showing that not all attributes are
>> computable established that there WERE limits to computations, and by
>> some simple extensions, provability in logic.
>>
>> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific "Impossible
>> Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery of it that
>> established the limitation that we know today.
>>
>> The impossible program is just an example of a particular program
>> with a particular input. It should be noted that it isn't the ONLY
>> sort of program that can't be decided on, it is just a simple enough
>> one that the proof that it can't be decided on is simple enough for
>> most people to understand. There are many other very different
>> programs that also can not be decided if they halt or not by a
>> computation.
>
> Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting Problem which
> explicitly defines it to be based on the "Impossible Program"
> contradiction:

Why, it seems correct:

>
> "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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve
> the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.

Which is the basic description of the halting problem, followed by the
statement of Alan Turings Proof of the Halting Theorem which says the
Problem is not solvable in General (One program to handle all possible
inputs)

>
> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of what
> f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case. A key part
> of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer and program,
> which is known as a Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable
> over Turing machines. It is one of the first cases of decision problems
> proven to be unsolvable. This proof is significant to practical
> computing efforts, defining a class of applications which no
> programming invention can possibly perform perfectly."

Which is the proof of the Theorem.

Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the definition, even
though there was a sentence between them stating that the Theorem
related to it was proven, do you get your conclusion.

>
> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> /Flibble
>

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38711&group=comp.theory#38711

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Message-ID: <20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 158
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:21:58 UTC
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 20:21:57 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 8809
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:21 UTC

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
> >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic
> >>>>>> Theory.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a solution
> >>>>>> to that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie to imply that
> >>>>>> your solution applies to the original classical problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition,
> >>>>>> which is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting
> >>>>>> Problem".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful person
> >>>>>> by implying something that isn't true, or be careful enough to
> >>>>>> make yourself clear.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended
> >>>>>> Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints of being
> >>>>>> deceitful.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although in
> >>>>>> his case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS tried to
> >>>>>> extend the definition to something different, and thus gets
> >>>>>> stuck in lie loops.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
> >>>>> definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense: this
> >>>>> certainly isn't how science is supposed to work. Science deals
> >>>>> with moving targets as unlike with mathematical theories no
> >>>>> scientific theory can be proven, only falsified. So the
> >>>>> question ultimately becomes is the Halting Problem a
> >>>>> mathematical problem or a computer science problem? If the
> >>>>> latter then my approach is perfectly valid: scientific theories
> >>>>> EVOLVE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
> >>>>
> >>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can
> >>>> totally break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING
> >>>> that was done based on the old definition to see if it still
> >>>> holds, or how it changes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
> >>>> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what changed
> >>>> can be easily done.
> >>>>
> >>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove restrictions
> >>>> or increase the guaranteed results as that can't cause a
> >>>> backwards compatibility issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the old.
> >>>> Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just pointed
> >>>> out the limitations of them and showed how to handle cases that
> >>>> they couldn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is
> >>>> YES, because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and is
> >>>> thus different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that
> >>>> aren't (but use a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical
> >>>> "Sciences" do deal with "Proofs".
> >>>
> >>> Agree.
> >>>
> >>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
> >>> uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem of
> >>> the contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than the
> >>> far more important *general* problem of determining if a
> >>> particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet to be
> >>> convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I maintain
> >>> that the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red herring.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century ago as
> >> people were trying to figure out what was actually able to be done
> >> with finite work (Computability). Showing that not all attributes
> >> are computable established that there WERE limits to computations,
> >> and by some simple extensions, provability in logic.
> >>
> >> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific "Impossible
> >> Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery of it that
> >> established the limitation that we know today.
> >>
> >> The impossible program is just an example of a particular program
> >> with a particular input. It should be noted that it isn't the ONLY
> >> sort of program that can't be decided on, it is just a simple
> >> enough one that the proof that it can't be decided on is simple
> >> enough for most people to understand. There are many other very
> >> different programs that also can not be decided if they halt or
> >> not by a computation.
> >
> > Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting Problem
> > which explicitly defines it to be based on the "Impossible Program"
> > contradiction:
>
> Why, it seems correct:
>
> >
> > "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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm
> > to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs
> > cannot exist.
>
> Which is the basic description of the halting problem, followed by
> the statement of Alan Turings Proof of the Halting Theorem which says
> the Problem is not solvable in General (One program to handle all
> possible inputs)
>
> >
> > For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> > "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
> > source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
> > what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case. A
> > key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
> > and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
> > problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the first
> > cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This proof is
> > significant to practical computing efforts, defining a class of
> > applications which no programming invention can possibly perform
> > perfectly."
>
> Which is the proof of the Theorem.

That is my point: according to Wikipedia the proof of the Theorem is
the "Impossible Program" contradiction: nothing else is mentioned in
these first two paragraphs.

>
> Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the definition,
> even though there was a sentence between them stating that the
> Theorem related to it was proven, do you get your conclusion.

I see no such separating sentence.
> >
> > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

/Flibble

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called in infinite recursion ]

<pjPOK.80479$kY1.54485@fx06.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38712&group=comp.theory#38712

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering [ deciders called
in infinite recursion ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ENCcndBKaNHczJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
<VvsOK.169548$nZ1.2332@fx05.iad>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<QDudnScqsd_U-Jb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <teg0b7$l9qs$1@dont-email.me>
<sHWdnbnZ1rd5Fpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<l_MOK.951450$wIO9.474639@fx12.iad>
<RNqdnfvtZvWpPpb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<bQNOK.1191830$X_i.531312@fx18.iad>
<Ii6dnVT4KJGPMZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<uaOOK.897566$ssF.449038@fx14.iad>
<6Eudne9yD4OuLZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <6Eudne9yD4OuLZb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <pjPOK.80479$kY1.54485@fx06.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:26:13 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6688
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:26 UTC

On 8/28/22 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/28/2022 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/28/22 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/28/2022 12:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/28/22 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/28/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/28/22 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/28/2022 10:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-28 12:53:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-27 19:26:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When any system of axioms has a pair of axioms that
>>>>>>>>>>> contradict each other at most one of these axioms is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Deciders must always return to their caller.
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) No function called in infinite recursion returns to its
>>>>>>>>>>> caller.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although not formally worng, it is not a good style to have
>>>>>>>>>> axioms
>>>>>>>>>> that can be proven. Above (a) is a consequence of the definition
>>>>>>>>>> of "decider" and (b) is a consequence of the definition "infinite
>>>>>>>>>> recursion". As both are proven neither one is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When deciders are called in infinite recursion we have
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, the "axioms" are not contradictory, as both are proven. But a
>>>>>>>>>> provable consequence is that nothing in an infinite recursion is
>>>>>>>>>> a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A decider called in infinite recursion can correctly determine
>>>>>>>>> that it was called in infinite recursion and can return to some
>>>>>>>>> caller yet this simply doesn't count because it is against the
>>>>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a "decider" is called in infinite recursion it does not return
>>>>>>>> and therefore is not a decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not true in my case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my case the decider does return to main() yet does not return
>>>>>>> to P() thus does not always return to every caller. The decider
>>>>>>> does not return to P() because it is never invoked in P(), P() is
>>>>>>> aborted by H() before H(P,P) is invoked in P().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except it DOES return to P, if that P is called by Main and not
>>>>>> simulated by H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H aborts its simulation of P as soon as it sees that P would invoke
>>>>> H(P,P) before this invocation is actually executed.
>>>>
>>>> Which means that P(P) actually will return in finite time, so H is
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rule that a decider must return to every caller does not
>>>>> stipulate that this call must be executed, thus H must return to
>>>>> the simulated P even though P's call to H is never actually executed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since H aborted the simulation of its input, it will not reach that
>>>> point in the simulation, but the COMPLETE simulation of that input
>>>> WOULD reach the point where it returns.
>>>>
>>> In other words you are saying that infinite recursion eventually
>>> stops if you simply wait long enough.
>>
>> No, but since *THIS* H was defined so that it aborts at the call to
>> H(Px,Px) from Px, that no infinite recursion actually exists.
>>
>
> Let's get back to the point of this thread. Does a decider have to
> return a value from a function call that was never executed?
>

How can it?, you can only return to that which calls you if you are a
pure function.

Now, if you mean that if we simulate a call to the decider do we need to
account for the fact that decider will return, that is a different
question, and the correct simulation of a call instruction must either
be followed by the actual simulation of the routine called, or by a
replacing of that routine with the ACTUAL behavior of the routine called
(so, since we have found out that H(P,P) returns 0, a call to H(P,P)
needs to be eventually seen as returning 0)

You of course can abort your simulation before you get there, but any
logic about what would happen if you continued, needs to be compatible
with what actually would happen. THat means that if THIS copy of H was
made to continue, it would see the H(P,P) that P(P) called would
eventually abort its simulation at the exact point we forced this copy
to continue, and return the 0 value to P(P) and it will Halt.

You are not allowed to change the code that the simulation sees, so you
can't actually change the code of H to make this happen but need to do
something like use a debugger to force the state in THIS copy of H to
make it continue without affecting other copies.

This is another of you attempts at deception, trying to get someone to
agree to your errors to allow you to try to break the rules.

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38713&group=comp.theory#38713

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<hvOcna1cIpJsyJf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827184216.000054d7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 184
Message-ID: <ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 11327
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:30 UTC

On 8/28/22 3:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic
>>>>>>>> Theory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a solution
>>>>>>>> to that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie to imply that
>>>>>>>> your solution applies to the original classical problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition,
>>>>>>>> which is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting
>>>>>>>> Problem".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful person
>>>>>>>> by implying something that isn't true, or be careful enough to
>>>>>>>> make yourself clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended
>>>>>>>> Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints of being
>>>>>>>> deceitful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although in
>>>>>>>> his case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS tried to
>>>>>>>> extend the definition to something different, and thus gets
>>>>>>>> stuck in lie loops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
>>>>>>> definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense: this
>>>>>>> certainly isn't how science is supposed to work. Science deals
>>>>>>> with moving targets as unlike with mathematical theories no
>>>>>>> scientific theory can be proven, only falsified. So the
>>>>>>> question ultimately becomes is the Halting Problem a
>>>>>>> mathematical problem or a computer science problem? If the
>>>>>>> latter then my approach is perfectly valid: scientific theories
>>>>>>> EVOLVE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can
>>>>>> totally break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING
>>>>>> that was done based on the old definition to see if it still
>>>>>> holds, or how it changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
>>>>>> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what changed
>>>>>> can be easily done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove restrictions
>>>>>> or increase the guaranteed results as that can't cause a
>>>>>> backwards compatibility issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the old.
>>>>>> Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just pointed
>>>>>> out the limitations of them and showed how to handle cases that
>>>>>> they couldn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is
>>>>>> YES, because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and is
>>>>>> thus different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that
>>>>>> aren't (but use a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical
>>>>>> "Sciences" do deal with "Proofs".
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
>>>>> uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem of
>>>>> the contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than the
>>>>> far more important *general* problem of determining if a
>>>>> particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet to be
>>>>> convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I maintain
>>>>> that the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red herring.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century ago as
>>>> people were trying to figure out what was actually able to be done
>>>> with finite work (Computability). Showing that not all attributes
>>>> are computable established that there WERE limits to computations,
>>>> and by some simple extensions, provability in logic.
>>>>
>>>> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific "Impossible
>>>> Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery of it that
>>>> established the limitation that we know today.
>>>>
>>>> The impossible program is just an example of a particular program
>>>> with a particular input. It should be noted that it isn't the ONLY
>>>> sort of program that can't be decided on, it is just a simple
>>>> enough one that the proof that it can't be decided on is simple
>>>> enough for most people to understand. There are many other very
>>>> different programs that also can not be decided if they halt or
>>>> not by a computation.
>>>
>>> Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting Problem
>>> which explicitly defines it to be based on the "Impossible Program"
>>> contradiction:
>>
>> Why, it seems correct:
>>
>>>
>>> "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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm
>>> to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs
>>> cannot exist.
>>
>> Which is the basic description of the halting problem, followed by
>> the statement of Alan Turings Proof of the Halting Theorem which says
>> the Problem is not solvable in General (One program to handle all
>> possible inputs)
>>
>>>
>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case. A
>>> key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
>>> and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
>>> problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the first
>>> cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This proof is
>>> significant to practical computing efforts, defining a class of
>>> applications which no programming invention can possibly perform
>>> perfectly."
>>
>> Which is the proof of the Theorem.
>
> That is my point: according to Wikipedia the proof of the Theorem is
> the "Impossible Program" contradiction: nothing else is mentioned in
> these first two paragraphs.
>
>>
>> Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the definition,
>> even though there was a sentence between them stating that the
>> Theorem related to it was proven, do you get your conclusion.
>
> I see no such separating sentence.
>
>>>
>>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> /Flibble
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38714&group=comp.theory#38714

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Message-ID: <20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 225
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:38:21 UTC
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 20:38:20 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 12142
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:38 UTC

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 8/28/22 3:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
> >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
> >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic
> >>>>>>>> Theory.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a solution
> >>>>>>>> to that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie to imply that
> >>>>>>>> your solution applies to the original classical problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition,
> >>>>>>>> which is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting
> >>>>>>>> Problem".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful person
> >>>>>>>> by implying something that isn't true, or be careful enough
> >>>>>>>> to make yourself clear.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended
> >>>>>>>> Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints of being
> >>>>>>>> deceitful.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although in
> >>>>>>>> his case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS tried to
> >>>>>>>> extend the definition to something different, and thus gets
> >>>>>>>> stuck in lie loops.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
> >>>>>>> definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense: this
> >>>>>>> certainly isn't how science is supposed to work. Science
> >>>>>>> deals with moving targets as unlike with mathematical
> >>>>>>> theories no scientific theory can be proven, only falsified.
> >>>>>>> So the question ultimately becomes is the Halting Problem a
> >>>>>>> mathematical problem or a computer science problem? If the
> >>>>>>> latter then my approach is perfectly valid: scientific
> >>>>>>> theories EVOLVE.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can
> >>>>>> totally break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING
> >>>>>> that was done based on the old definition to see if it still
> >>>>>> holds, or how it changes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
> >>>>>> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what
> >>>>>> changed can be easily done.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove restrictions
> >>>>>> or increase the guaranteed results as that can't cause a
> >>>>>> backwards compatibility issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the
> >>>>>> old. Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just
> >>>>>> pointed out the limitations of them and showed how to handle
> >>>>>> cases that they couldn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is
> >>>>>> YES, because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and
> >>>>>> is thus different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that
> >>>>>> aren't (but use a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical
> >>>>>> "Sciences" do deal with "Proofs".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
> >>>>> uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem of
> >>>>> the contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than the
> >>>>> far more important *general* problem of determining if a
> >>>>> particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet to
> >>>>> be convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I
> >>>>> maintain that the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red
> >>>>> herring.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century ago
> >>>> as people were trying to figure out what was actually able to be
> >>>> done with finite work (Computability). Showing that not all
> >>>> attributes are computable established that there WERE limits to
> >>>> computations, and by some simple extensions, provability in
> >>>> logic.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific "Impossible
> >>>> Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery of it that
> >>>> established the limitation that we know today.
> >>>>
> >>>> The impossible program is just an example of a particular program
> >>>> with a particular input. It should be noted that it isn't the
> >>>> ONLY sort of program that can't be decided on, it is just a
> >>>> simple enough one that the proof that it can't be decided on is
> >>>> simple enough for most people to understand. There are many
> >>>> other very different programs that also can not be decided if
> >>>> they halt or not by a computation.
> >>>
> >>> Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting Problem
> >>> which explicitly defines it to be based on the "Impossible
> >>> Program" contradiction:
> >>
> >> Why, it seems correct:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general
> >>> algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> >>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>
> >> Which is the basic description of the halting problem, followed by
> >> the statement of Alan Turings Proof of the Halting Theorem which
> >> says the Problem is not solvable in General (One program to handle
> >> all possible inputs)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
> >>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
> >>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case.
> >>> A key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
> >>> and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
> >>> problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the
> >>> first cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This
> >>> proof is significant to practical computing efforts, defining a
> >>> class of applications which no programming invention can possibly
> >>> perform perfectly."
> >>
> >> Which is the proof of the Theorem.
> >
> > That is my point: according to Wikipedia the proof of the Theorem is
> > the "Impossible Program" contradiction: nothing else is mentioned in
> > these first two paragraphs.
> >
> >>
> >> Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the definition,
> >> even though there was a sentence between them stating that the
> >> Theorem related to it was proven, do you get your conclusion.
> >
> > I see no such separating sentence.
> >
> >>>
> >>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> To Quote:
>
>
> > 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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm
> > to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs
> > cannot exist.
> >
> > For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> > "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
> > source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
> > what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case. A
> > key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
> > and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
> > problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the first
> > cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This proof is
> > significant to practical computing efforts, defining a class of
> > applications which no programming invention can possibly perform
> > perfectly.
>
> Breaking down into the sections:
>
> P1S1: The description of the 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.
>
> P1S2: The Statment of the Theorem and that it was proven
> > Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the
> > halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
>
> P2S1: An Overview of the Proof
> > For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> > "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
> > source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
> > what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<GfQOK.715605$vAW9.389716@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38724&group=comp.theory#38724

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
<20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 252
Message-ID: <GfQOK.715605$vAW9.389716@fx10.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:30:29 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 13205
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 20:30 UTC

On 8/28/22 3:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/22 3:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic
>>>>>>>>>> Theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a solution
>>>>>>>>>> to that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie to imply that
>>>>>>>>>> your solution applies to the original classical problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition,
>>>>>>>>>> which is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting
>>>>>>>>>> Problem".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful person
>>>>>>>>>> by implying something that isn't true, or be careful enough
>>>>>>>>>> to make yourself clear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended
>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints of being
>>>>>>>>>> deceitful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although in
>>>>>>>>>> his case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS tried to
>>>>>>>>>> extend the definition to something different, and thus gets
>>>>>>>>>> stuck in lie loops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
>>>>>>>>> definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense: this
>>>>>>>>> certainly isn't how science is supposed to work. Science
>>>>>>>>> deals with moving targets as unlike with mathematical
>>>>>>>>> theories no scientific theory can be proven, only falsified.
>>>>>>>>> So the question ultimately becomes is the Halting Problem a
>>>>>>>>> mathematical problem or a computer science problem? If the
>>>>>>>>> latter then my approach is perfectly valid: scientific
>>>>>>>>> theories EVOLVE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can
>>>>>>>> totally break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING
>>>>>>>> that was done based on the old definition to see if it still
>>>>>>>> holds, or how it changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
>>>>>>>> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what
>>>>>>>> changed can be easily done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove restrictions
>>>>>>>> or increase the guaranteed results as that can't cause a
>>>>>>>> backwards compatibility issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the
>>>>>>>> old. Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just
>>>>>>>> pointed out the limitations of them and showed how to handle
>>>>>>>> cases that they couldn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is
>>>>>>>> YES, because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and
>>>>>>>> is thus different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that
>>>>>>>> aren't (but use a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical
>>>>>>>> "Sciences" do deal with "Proofs".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
>>>>>>> uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem of
>>>>>>> the contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than the
>>>>>>> far more important *general* problem of determining if a
>>>>>>> particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet to
>>>>>>> be convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I
>>>>>>> maintain that the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red
>>>>>>> herring.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century ago
>>>>>> as people were trying to figure out what was actually able to be
>>>>>> done with finite work (Computability). Showing that not all
>>>>>> attributes are computable established that there WERE limits to
>>>>>> computations, and by some simple extensions, provability in
>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific "Impossible
>>>>>> Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery of it that
>>>>>> established the limitation that we know today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The impossible program is just an example of a particular program
>>>>>> with a particular input. It should be noted that it isn't the
>>>>>> ONLY sort of program that can't be decided on, it is just a
>>>>>> simple enough one that the proof that it can't be decided on is
>>>>>> simple enough for most people to understand. There are many
>>>>>> other very different programs that also can not be decided if
>>>>>> they halt or not by a computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting Problem
>>>>> which explicitly defines it to be based on the "Impossible
>>>>> Program" contradiction:
>>>>
>>>> Why, it seems correct:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general
>>>>> algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
>>>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>>>
>>>> Which is the basic description of the halting problem, followed by
>>>> the statement of Alan Turings Proof of the Halting Theorem which
>>>> says the Problem is not solvable in General (One program to handle
>>>> all possible inputs)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>>>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case.
>>>>> A key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
>>>>> and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
>>>>> problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the
>>>>> first cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This
>>>>> proof is significant to practical computing efforts, defining a
>>>>> class of applications which no programming invention can possibly
>>>>> perform perfectly."
>>>>
>>>> Which is the proof of the Theorem.
>>>
>>> That is my point: according to Wikipedia the proof of the Theorem is
>>> the "Impossible Program" contradiction: nothing else is mentioned in
>>> these first two paragraphs.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the definition,
>>>> even though there was a sentence between them stating that the
>>>> Theorem related to it was proven, do you get your conclusion.
>>>
>>> I see no such separating sentence.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> To Quote:
>>
>>
>>> 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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm
>>> to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs
>>> cannot exist.
>>>
>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case. A
>>> key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
>>> and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
>>> problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the first
>>> cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This proof is
>>> significant to practical computing efforts, defining a class of
>>> applications which no programming invention can possibly perform
>>> perfectly.
>>
>> Breaking down into the sections:
>>
>> P1S1: The description of the 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.
>>
>> P1S2: The Statment of the Theorem and that it was proven
>>> Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the
>>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>
>> P2S1: An Overview of the Proof
>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case.
>
> Again, my point exactly, "the" Proof is the "Impossible Program"
> contradiction, no other proofs are mentioned the implication being that
> the Halting Problem is concerned with the contradiction alone.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<tegjc7$1p8b$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38725&group=comp.theory#38725

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!JRO7Wi0WFIifm2/JxChH5Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: anw...@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 21:32:06 +0100
Organization: Not very much
Message-ID: <tegjc7$1p8b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
<20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="58635"; posting-host="JRO7Wi0WFIifm2/JxChH5Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Andy Walker - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 20:32 UTC

On 28/08/2022 20:38, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
[...]
>> P2S1: An Overview of the Proof
>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>> "pathological" program g, [...]
> Again, my point exactly, "the" Proof is the "Impossible Program"
> contradiction, no other proofs are mentioned the implication being that
> the Halting Problem is concerned with the contradiction alone.
Of course, Richard should have referred to "An Overview of /a/
proof". But you only need one proof to establish a theorem; all the
other proofs are redundant unless and until someone finds a flaw in
"the" proof. As ever in these quite funny threads, the difficulty lies
in knowing whether Flibble is [as so often] trolling, or exposing his
ignorance. Much the same applies to at least two other frequent
contributors. But if people have the time to write 20+ articles/day
[each], they perhaps need to find more productive hobbies.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Ascher

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<20220828213445.00002c71@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38726&group=comp.theory#38726

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Message-ID: <20220828213445.00002c71@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
<20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<GfQOK.715605$vAW9.389716@fx10.iad>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 269
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 20:34:45 UTC
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 21:34:45 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 14076
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 20:34 UTC

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:30:29 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 8/28/22 3:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/28/22 3:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
> >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
> >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
> >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic
> >>>>>>>>>> Theory.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a
> >>>>>>>>>> solution to that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie
> >>>>>>>>>> to imply that your solution applies to the original
> >>>>>>>>>> classical problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition,
> >>>>>>>>>> which is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting
> >>>>>>>>>> Problem".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>> person by implying something that isn't true, or be
> >>>>>>>>>> careful enough to make yourself clear.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended
> >>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints of being
> >>>>>>>>>> deceitful.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although
> >>>>>>>>>> in his case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS
> >>>>>>>>>> tried to extend the definition to something different, and
> >>>>>>>>>> thus gets stuck in lie loops.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
> >>>>>>>>> definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense:
> >>>>>>>>> this certainly isn't how science is supposed to work.
> >>>>>>>>> Science deals with moving targets as unlike with
> >>>>>>>>> mathematical theories no scientific theory can be proven,
> >>>>>>>>> only falsified. So the question ultimately becomes is the
> >>>>>>>>> Halting Problem a mathematical problem or a computer
> >>>>>>>>> science problem? If the latter then my approach is
> >>>>>>>>> perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can
> >>>>>>>> totally break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING
> >>>>>>>> that was done based on the old definition to see if it still
> >>>>>>>> holds, or how it changes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
> >>>>>>>> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what
> >>>>>>>> changed can be easily done.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove
> >>>>>>>> restrictions or increase the guaranteed results as that
> >>>>>>>> can't cause a backwards compatibility issue.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the
> >>>>>>>> old. Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just
> >>>>>>>> pointed out the limitations of them and showed how to handle
> >>>>>>>> cases that they couldn't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is
> >>>>>>>> YES, because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and
> >>>>>>>> is thus different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that
> >>>>>>>> aren't (but use a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical
> >>>>>>>> "Sciences" do deal with "Proofs".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Agree.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
> >>>>>>> uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem
> >>>>>>> of the contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than
> >>>>>>> the far more important *general* problem of determining if a
> >>>>>>> particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet
> >>>>>>> to be convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I
> >>>>>>> maintain that the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red
> >>>>>>> herring.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century ago
> >>>>>> as people were trying to figure out what was actually able to
> >>>>>> be done with finite work (Computability). Showing that not all
> >>>>>> attributes are computable established that there WERE limits to
> >>>>>> computations, and by some simple extensions, provability in
> >>>>>> logic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific
> >>>>>> "Impossible Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery
> >>>>>> of it that established the limitation that we know today.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The impossible program is just an example of a particular
> >>>>>> program with a particular input. It should be noted that it
> >>>>>> isn't the ONLY sort of program that can't be decided on, it is
> >>>>>> just a simple enough one that the proof that it can't be
> >>>>>> decided on is simple enough for most people to understand.
> >>>>>> There are many other very different programs that also can not
> >>>>>> be decided if they halt or not by a computation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting Problem
> >>>>> which explicitly defines it to be based on the "Impossible
> >>>>> Program" contradiction:
> >>>>
> >>>> Why, it seems correct:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
> >>>>> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> >>>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is the basic description of the halting problem, followed
> >>>> by the statement of Alan Turings Proof of the Halting Theorem
> >>>> which says the Problem is not solvable in General (One program
> >>>> to handle all possible inputs)
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
> >>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
> >>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
> >>>>> handles this case. A key part of the proof is a mathematical
> >>>>> definition of a computer and program, which is known as a
> >>>>> Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable over Turing
> >>>>> machines. It is one of the first cases of decision problems
> >>>>> proven to be unsolvable. This proof is significant to practical
> >>>>> computing efforts, defining a class of applications which no
> >>>>> programming invention can possibly perform perfectly."
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is the proof of the Theorem.
> >>>
> >>> That is my point: according to Wikipedia the proof of the Theorem
> >>> is the "Impossible Program" contradiction: nothing else is
> >>> mentioned in these first two paragraphs.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the definition,
> >>>> even though there was a sentence between them stating that the
> >>>> Theorem related to it was proven, do you get your conclusion.
> >>>
> >>> I see no such separating sentence.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> To Quote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general
> >>> algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> >>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>>
> >>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
> >>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
> >>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case.
> >>> A key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
> >>> and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
> >>> problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the
> >>> first cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This
> >>> proof is significant to practical computing efforts, defining a
> >>> class of applications which no programming invention can possibly
> >>> perform perfectly.
> >>
> >> Breaking down into the sections:
> >>
> >> P1S1: The description of the 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.
> >>
> >> P1S2: The Statment of the Theorem and that it was proven
> >>> Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the
> >>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot
> >>> exist.
> >>
> >> P2S1: An Overview of the Proof
> >>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
> >>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
> >>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case.
> >>>
> >
> > Again, my point exactly, "the" Proof is the "Impossible Program"
> > contradiction, no other proofs are mentioned the implication being
> > that the Halting Problem is concerned with the contradiction alone.
> >
>
> So, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the Theorem
> associated with that Problem?
>
> >
> >>
> >> P2S2: A Summary of the Effect of the Theorem being Proven
> >>> A key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
> >>> and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
> >>> problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the
> >>> first cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This
> >>> proof is significant to practical computing efforts, defining a
> >>> class of applications which no programming invention can possibly
> >>> perform perfectly.
> >
> > "the" proof obviously refers to the previous proof and no other
> > proof.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
> >
> >
>
> Again, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the THEOREM
> about that Problem.
>
> Your intial statement was about THE PROBLEM.
>
> The Problem has NOTHING about the "Impossible Program" in it.
>
> The PROBLEM came first, as people were wondering it this idea of a
> computing machine might be able to prove some of the problems that
> they were intereseted in but couldn't solve.
>
> THEN came Alan Turing with a formalization of the Turing Machine,
> showed that it could do any form of calculation, and the impossible
> program that no Turing Machine could possible decide.
>
> This is what proved that a Halt Decider couldn't be created, and it
> came AFTER the Halting Problem existed.
>
> Thus, the Halting PROBLEM is not about the Impossible Program, only
> the Proof uses it.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<GoQOK.901539$ssF.531274@fx14.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38727&group=comp.theory#38727

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx14.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ghicnenqCstSx5f-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
<20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <tegjc7$1p8b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <tegjc7$1p8b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <GoQOK.901539$ssF.531274@fx14.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:40:05 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3329
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 20:40 UTC

On 8/28/22 4:32 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 28/08/2022 20:38, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>> P2S1: An Overview of the Proof
>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>> "pathological" program g, [...]
>> Again, my point exactly, "the" Proof is the "Impossible Program"
>> contradiction, no other proofs are mentioned the implication being that
>> the Halting Problem is concerned with the contradiction alone.
>     Of course, Richard should have referred to "An Overview of /a/
> proof".  But you only need one proof to establish a theorem;  all the
> other proofs are redundant unless and until someone finds a flaw in
> "the" proof.  As ever in these quite funny threads, the difficulty lies
> in knowing whether Flibble is [as so often] trolling, or exposing his
> ignorance.  Much the same applies to at least two other frequent
> contributors.  But if people have the time to write 20+ articles/day
> [each], they perhaps need to find more productive hobbies.
>

It is the "Important" "The", not to indicate that it is the only one,
but that it is the one that is generally thought of.

> (pronounced stressing “the”) used to indicate that someone or something is the best known or most important of that name or type.
Like "The George Foreman" would be used to refer to the famous boxer and
not one of his sons or anyone else who goes by that name.

Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<BDQOK.1001610$JVi.478198@fx17.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38730&group=comp.theory#38730

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx17.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<20220827185853.00000534@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BfGdnRBpgfI3wJf-nZ2dnZfqlJxQAAAA@giganews.com>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
<20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<GfQOK.715605$vAW9.389716@fx10.iad>
<20220828213445.00002c71@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220828213445.00002c71@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 288
Message-ID: <BDQOK.1001610$JVi.478198@fx17.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:56:01 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 15050
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 20:56 UTC

On 8/28/22 4:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:30:29 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/22 3:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/22 3:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the Classic
>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a
>>>>>>>>>>>> solution to that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie
>>>>>>>>>>>> to imply that your solution applies to the original
>>>>>>>>>>>> classical problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical definition,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is presumed by people when you just say "The Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>> person by implying something that isn't true, or be
>>>>>>>>>>>> careful enough to make yourself clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The extended
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints of being
>>>>>>>>>>>> deceitful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has, although
>>>>>>>>>>>> in his case I think he doesn't understand that he HAS
>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to extend the definition to something different, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> thus gets stuck in lie loops.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea that
>>>>>>>>>>> definitions and theories cannot be refined is a nonsense:
>>>>>>>>>>> this certainly isn't how science is supposed to work.
>>>>>>>>>>> Science deals with moving targets as unlike with
>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical theories no scientific theory can be proven,
>>>>>>>>>>> only falsified. So the question ultimately becomes is the
>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem a mathematical problem or a computer
>>>>>>>>>>> science problem? If the latter then my approach is
>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been using.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can
>>>>>>>>>> totally break a system, as you need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING
>>>>>>>>>> that was done based on the old definition to see if it still
>>>>>>>>>> holds, or how it changes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up an
>>>>>>>>>> ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing what
>>>>>>>>>> changed can be easily done.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove
>>>>>>>>>> restrictions or increase the guaranteed results as that
>>>>>>>>>> can't cause a backwards compatibility issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the
>>>>>>>>>> old. Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but just
>>>>>>>>>> pointed out the limitations of them and showed how to handle
>>>>>>>>>> cases that they couldn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer is
>>>>>>>>>> YES, because Computer Science is a BRANCH of Mathematics, and
>>>>>>>>>> is thus different than the "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that
>>>>>>>>>> aren't (but use a lot of Mathematics). The Mathematical
>>>>>>>>>> "Sciences" do deal with "Proofs".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined* is
>>>>>>>>> uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific* problem
>>>>>>>>> of the contradiction of the "Impossible Program" rather than
>>>>>>>>> the far more important *general* problem of determining if a
>>>>>>>>> particular program given a particular input halts. I am yet
>>>>>>>>> to be convinced that these two problems are one in the same: I
>>>>>>>>> maintain that the "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red
>>>>>>>>> herring.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century ago
>>>>>>>> as people were trying to figure out what was actually able to
>>>>>>>> be done with finite work (Computability). Showing that not all
>>>>>>>> attributes are computable established that there WERE limits to
>>>>>>>> computations, and by some simple extensions, provability in
>>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific
>>>>>>>> "Impossible Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery
>>>>>>>> of it that established the limitation that we know today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The impossible program is just an example of a particular
>>>>>>>> program with a particular input. It should be noted that it
>>>>>>>> isn't the ONLY sort of program that can't be decided on, it is
>>>>>>>> just a simple enough one that the proof that it can't be
>>>>>>>> decided on is simple enough for most people to understand.
>>>>>>>> There are many other very different programs that also can not
>>>>>>>> be decided if they halt or not by a computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting Problem
>>>>>>> which explicitly defines it to be based on the "Impossible
>>>>>>> Program" contradiction:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, it seems correct:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
>>>>>>> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
>>>>>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is the basic description of the halting problem, followed
>>>>>> by the statement of Alan Turings Proof of the Halting Theorem
>>>>>> which says the Problem is not solvable in General (One program
>>>>>> to handle all possible inputs)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
>>>>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>> handles this case. A key part of the proof is a mathematical
>>>>>>> definition of a computer and program, which is known as a
>>>>>>> Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable over Turing
>>>>>>> machines. It is one of the first cases of decision problems
>>>>>>> proven to be unsolvable. This proof is significant to practical
>>>>>>> computing efforts, defining a class of applications which no
>>>>>>> programming invention can possibly perform perfectly."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is the proof of the Theorem.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is my point: according to Wikipedia the proof of the Theorem
>>>>> is the "Impossible Program" contradiction: nothing else is
>>>>> mentioned in these first two paragraphs.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the definition,
>>>>>> even though there was a sentence between them stating that the
>>>>>> Theorem related to it was proven, do you get your conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see no such separating sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To Quote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general
>>>>> algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
>>>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>>>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case.
>>>>> A key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
>>>>> and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
>>>>> problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the
>>>>> first cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This
>>>>> proof is significant to practical computing efforts, defining a
>>>>> class of applications which no programming invention can possibly
>>>>> perform perfectly.
>>>>
>>>> Breaking down into the sections:
>>>>
>>>> P1S1: The description of the 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.
>>>>
>>>> P1S2: The Statment of the Theorem and that it was proven
>>>>> Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the
>>>>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot
>>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> P2S1: An Overview of the Proof
>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>>>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, my point exactly, "the" Proof is the "Impossible Program"
>>> contradiction, no other proofs are mentioned the implication being
>>> that the Halting Problem is concerned with the contradiction alone.
>>>
>>
>> So, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the Theorem
>> associated with that Problem?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> P2S2: A Summary of the Effect of the Theorem being Proven
>>>>> A key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
>>>>> and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
>>>>> problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the
>>>>> first cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This
>>>>> proof is significant to practical computing efforts, defining a
>>>>> class of applications which no programming invention can possibly
>>>>> perform perfectly.
>>>
>>> "the" proof obviously refers to the previous proof and no other
>>> proof.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Again, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the THEOREM
>> about that Problem.
>>
>> Your intial statement was about THE PROBLEM.
>>
>> The Problem has NOTHING about the "Impossible Program" in it.
>>
>> The PROBLEM came first, as people were wondering it this idea of a
>> computing machine might be able to prove some of the problems that
>> they were intereseted in but couldn't solve.
>>
>> THEN came Alan Turing with a formalization of the Turing Machine,
>> showed that it could do any form of calculation, and the impossible
>> program that no Turing Machine could possible decide.
>>
>> This is what proved that a Halt Decider couldn't be created, and it
>> came AFTER the Halting Problem existed.
>>
>> Thus, the Halting PROBLEM is not about the Impossible Program, only
>> the Proof uses it.
>
> "the Proof" not "a Proof", ergo the Halting Problem has a symbiotic
> relationship with the "Impossible Program" proof alone.
>
> If you disagree then please present an alternative proof that has no
> relationship to the "Impossible Program" whatsoever if we are to
> progress this further.
>
> /Flibble
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<20220828222322.00006dcb@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38732&group=comp.theory#38732

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Message-ID: <20220828222322.00006dcb@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
<20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<GfQOK.715605$vAW9.389716@fx10.iad>
<20220828213445.00002c71@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BDQOK.1001610$JVi.478198@fx17.iad>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 301
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 21:23:22 UTC
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 22:23:22 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 15847
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 21:23 UTC

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:56:01 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 8/28/22 4:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:30:29 -0400
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/28/22 3:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/28/22 3:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
> >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
> >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
> >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
> >>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Classic Theory.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> solution to that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to imply that your solution applies to the original
> >>>>>>>>>>>> classical problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical
> >>>>>>>>>>>> definition, which is presumed by people when you just
> >>>>>>>>>>>> say "The Halting Problem".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>> person by implying something that isn't true, or be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> careful enough to make yourself clear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> extended Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of being deceitful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> although in his case I think he doesn't understand that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> he HAS tried to extend the definition to something
> >>>>>>>>>>>> different, and thus gets stuck in lie loops.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea
> >>>>>>>>>>> that definitions and theories cannot be refined is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense: this certainly isn't how science is supposed to
> >>>>>>>>>>> work. Science deals with moving targets as unlike with
> >>>>>>>>>>> mathematical theories no scientific theory can be proven,
> >>>>>>>>>>> only falsified. So the question ultimately becomes is the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem a mathematical problem or a computer
> >>>>>>>>>>> science problem? If the latter then my approach is
> >>>>>>>>>>> perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been
> >>>>>>>>>> using.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can
> >>>>>>>>>> totally break a system, as you need to re-evaluate
> >>>>>>>>>> EVERYTHING that was done based on the old definition to
> >>>>>>>>>> see if it still holds, or how it changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up
> >>>>>>>>>> an ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing
> >>>>>>>>>> what changed can be easily done.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove
> >>>>>>>>>> restrictions or increase the guaranteed results as that
> >>>>>>>>>> can't cause a backwards compatibility issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the
> >>>>>>>>>> old. Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but
> >>>>>>>>>> just pointed out the limitations of them and showed how to
> >>>>>>>>>> handle cases that they couldn't.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer
> >>>>>>>>>> is YES, because Computer Science is a BRANCH of
> >>>>>>>>>> Mathematics, and is thus different than the
> >>>>>>>>>> "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that aren't (but use a lot
> >>>>>>>>>> of Mathematics). The Mathematical "Sciences" do deal with
> >>>>>>>>>> "Proofs".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Agree.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined*
> >>>>>>>>> is uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific*
> >>>>>>>>> problem of the contradiction of the "Impossible Program"
> >>>>>>>>> rather than the far more important *general* problem of
> >>>>>>>>> determining if a particular program given a particular
> >>>>>>>>> input halts. I am yet to be convinced that these two
> >>>>>>>>> problems are one in the same: I maintain that the
> >>>>>>>>> "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red herring.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century
> >>>>>>>> ago as people were trying to figure out what was actually
> >>>>>>>> able to be done with finite work (Computability). Showing
> >>>>>>>> that not all attributes are computable established that
> >>>>>>>> there WERE limits to computations, and by some simple
> >>>>>>>> extensions, provability in logic.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific
> >>>>>>>> "Impossible Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery
> >>>>>>>> of it that established the limitation that we know today.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The impossible program is just an example of a particular
> >>>>>>>> program with a particular input. It should be noted that it
> >>>>>>>> isn't the ONLY sort of program that can't be decided on, it
> >>>>>>>> is just a simple enough one that the proof that it can't be
> >>>>>>>> decided on is simple enough for most people to understand.
> >>>>>>>> There are many other very different programs that also can
> >>>>>>>> not be decided if they halt or not by a computation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting
> >>>>>>> Problem which explicitly defines it to be based on the
> >>>>>>> "Impossible Program" contradiction:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why, it seems correct:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "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. Alan Turing proved in
> >>>>>>> 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem
> >>>>>>> for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which is the basic description of the halting problem, followed
> >>>>>> by the statement of Alan Turings Proof of the Halting Theorem
> >>>>>> which says the Problem is not solvable in General (One program
> >>>>>> to handle all possible inputs)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
> >>>>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
> >>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
> >>>>>>> handles this case. A key part of the proof is a mathematical
> >>>>>>> definition of a computer and program, which is known as a
> >>>>>>> Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable over Turing
> >>>>>>> machines. It is one of the first cases of decision problems
> >>>>>>> proven to be unsolvable. This proof is significant to
> >>>>>>> practical computing efforts, defining a class of applications
> >>>>>>> which no programming invention can possibly perform
> >>>>>>> perfectly."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which is the proof of the Theorem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is my point: according to Wikipedia the proof of the
> >>>>> Theorem is the "Impossible Program" contradiction: nothing else
> >>>>> is mentioned in these first two paragraphs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the
> >>>>>> definition, even though there was a sentence between them
> >>>>>> stating that the Theorem related to it was proven, do you get
> >>>>>> your conclusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see no such separating sentence.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> To Quote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
> >>>>> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> >>>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
> >>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
> >>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
> >>>>> handles this case. A key part of the proof is a mathematical
> >>>>> definition of a computer and program, which is known as a
> >>>>> Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable over Turing
> >>>>> machines. It is one of the first cases of decision problems
> >>>>> proven to be unsolvable. This proof is significant to practical
> >>>>> computing efforts, defining a class of applications which no
> >>>>> programming invention can possibly perform perfectly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Breaking down into the sections:
> >>>>
> >>>> P1S1: The description of the 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> P1S2: The Statment of the Theorem and that it was proven
> >>>>> Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the
> >>>>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot
> >>>>> exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> P2S1: An Overview of the Proof
> >>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
> >>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
> >>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
> >>>>> handles this case.
> >>>
> >>> Again, my point exactly, "the" Proof is the "Impossible Program"
> >>> contradiction, no other proofs are mentioned the implication being
> >>> that the Halting Problem is concerned with the contradiction
> >>> alone.
> >>
> >> So, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the Theorem
> >> associated with that Problem?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> P2S2: A Summary of the Effect of the Theorem being Proven
> >>>>> A key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a
> >>>>> computer and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the
> >>>>> halting problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one
> >>>>> of the first cases of decision problems proven to be
> >>>>> unsolvable. This proof is significant to practical computing
> >>>>> efforts, defining a class of applications which no programming
> >>>>> invention can possibly perform perfectly.
> >>>
> >>> "the" proof obviously refers to the previous proof and no other
> >>> proof.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Again, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the
> >> THEOREM about that Problem.
> >>
> >> Your intial statement was about THE PROBLEM.
> >>
> >> The Problem has NOTHING about the "Impossible Program" in it.
> >>
> >> The PROBLEM came first, as people were wondering it this idea of a
> >> computing machine might be able to prove some of the problems that
> >> they were intereseted in but couldn't solve.
> >>
> >> THEN came Alan Turing with a formalization of the Turing Machine,
> >> showed that it could do any form of calculation, and the impossible
> >> program that no Turing Machine could possible decide.
> >>
> >> This is what proved that a Halt Decider couldn't be created, and it
> >> came AFTER the Halting Problem existed.
> >>
> >> Thus, the Halting PROBLEM is not about the Impossible Program, only
> >> the Proof uses it.
> >
> > "the Proof" not "a Proof", ergo the Halting Problem has a symbiotic
> > relationship with the "Impossible Program" proof alone.
> >
> > If you disagree then please present an alternative proof that has no
> > relationship to the "Impossible Program" whatsoever if we are to
> > progress this further.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> The big problem is the other proofs tend to require knowledge of some
> higher level maths.
>
> Diagonalization is another simple proof, but that could be looked at
> as the impossible program just with a different skin.
>
> One other source is from the uncomputability of the Busy Beaver
> function (which is shown non-computable without reference to the
> Halting Problem) for sufficiently large N.
>
> If Halting WAS determinable, then the Busy Beaver Function would be
> computable by simple enumerating the full set of the finite number of
> Turing Machines of the given size, weed out those that don't halt,
> and run the ones that will and see what the longest output is.
>
> There are others, but I won't claim to know them well, or the math
> behind them.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<KhROK.891825$70j.47021@fx16.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38734&group=comp.theory#38734

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx16.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<20220827191238.000035b8@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<w5CdnSHfG4R8_pf-nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
<20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<GfQOK.715605$vAW9.389716@fx10.iad>
<20220828213445.00002c71@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BDQOK.1001610$JVi.478198@fx17.iad>
<20220828222322.00006dcb@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220828222322.00006dcb@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 307
Message-ID: <KhROK.891825$70j.47021@fx16.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:40:58 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 16189
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 21:40 UTC

On 8/28/22 5:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:56:01 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/22 4:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:30:29 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/22 3:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/28/22 3:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic Theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution to that alternate problem, but it becomes a lie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to imply that your solution applies to the original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classical problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, which is presumed by people when you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say "The Halting Problem".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person by implying something that isn't true, or be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful enough to make yourself clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extended Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of being deceitful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although in his case I think he doesn't understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he HAS tried to extend the definition to something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different, and thus gets stuck in lie loops.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that definitions and theories cannot be refined is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense: this certainly isn't how science is supposed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work. Science deals with moving targets as unlike with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical theories no scientific theory can be proven,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only falsified. So the question ultimately becomes is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem a mathematical problem or a computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> science problem? If the latter then my approach is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been
>>>>>>>>>>>> using.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it can
>>>>>>>>>>>> totally break a system, as you need to re-evaluate
>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERYTHING that was done based on the old definition to
>>>>>>>>>>>> see if it still holds, or how it changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up
>>>>>>>>>>>> an ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing
>>>>>>>>>>>> what changed can be easily done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove
>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions or increase the guaranteed results as that
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't cause a backwards compatibility issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace" the
>>>>>>>>>>>> old. Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> just pointed out the limitations of them and showed how to
>>>>>>>>>>>> handle cases that they couldn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> is YES, because Computer Science is a BRANCH of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics, and is thus different than the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that aren't (but use a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>> of Mathematics). The Mathematical "Sciences" do deal with
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Proofs".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined*
>>>>>>>>>>> is uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific*
>>>>>>>>>>> problem of the contradiction of the "Impossible Program"
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than the far more important *general* problem of
>>>>>>>>>>> determining if a particular program given a particular
>>>>>>>>>>> input halts. I am yet to be convinced that these two
>>>>>>>>>>> problems are one in the same: I maintain that the
>>>>>>>>>>> "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red herring.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century
>>>>>>>>>> ago as people were trying to figure out what was actually
>>>>>>>>>> able to be done with finite work (Computability). Showing
>>>>>>>>>> that not all attributes are computable established that
>>>>>>>>>> there WERE limits to computations, and by some simple
>>>>>>>>>> extensions, provability in logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific
>>>>>>>>>> "Impossible Program" was discovered, and it was the discovery
>>>>>>>>>> of it that established the limitation that we know today.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The impossible program is just an example of a particular
>>>>>>>>>> program with a particular input. It should be noted that it
>>>>>>>>>> isn't the ONLY sort of program that can't be decided on, it
>>>>>>>>>> is just a simple enough one that the proof that it can't be
>>>>>>>>>> decided on is simple enough for most people to understand.
>>>>>>>>>> There are many other very different programs that also can
>>>>>>>>>> not be decided if they halt or not by a computation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting
>>>>>>>>> Problem which explicitly defines it to be based on the
>>>>>>>>> "Impossible Program" contradiction:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why, it seems correct:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "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. Alan Turing proved in
>>>>>>>>> 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem
>>>>>>>>> for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is the basic description of the halting problem, followed
>>>>>>>> by the statement of Alan Turings Proof of the Halting Theorem
>>>>>>>> which says the Problem is not solvable in General (One program
>>>>>>>> to handle all possible inputs)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
>>>>>>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
>>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>>>> handles this case. A key part of the proof is a mathematical
>>>>>>>>> definition of a computer and program, which is known as a
>>>>>>>>> Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable over Turing
>>>>>>>>> machines. It is one of the first cases of decision problems
>>>>>>>>> proven to be unsolvable. This proof is significant to
>>>>>>>>> practical computing efforts, defining a class of applications
>>>>>>>>> which no programming invention can possibly perform
>>>>>>>>> perfectly."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is the proof of the Theorem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is my point: according to Wikipedia the proof of the
>>>>>>> Theorem is the "Impossible Program" contradiction: nothing else
>>>>>>> is mentioned in these first two paragraphs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the
>>>>>>>> definition, even though there was a sentence between them
>>>>>>>> stating that the Theorem related to it was proven, do you get
>>>>>>>> your conclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see no such separating sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To Quote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
>>>>>>> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
>>>>>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
>>>>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>> handles this case. A key part of the proof is a mathematical
>>>>>>> definition of a computer and program, which is known as a
>>>>>>> Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable over Turing
>>>>>>> machines. It is one of the first cases of decision problems
>>>>>>> proven to be unsolvable. This proof is significant to practical
>>>>>>> computing efforts, defining a class of applications which no
>>>>>>> programming invention can possibly perform perfectly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Breaking down into the sections:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P1S1: The description of the 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P1S2: The Statment of the Theorem and that it was proven
>>>>>>> Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the
>>>>>>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P2S1: An Overview of the Proof
>>>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
>>>>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>> handles this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, my point exactly, "the" Proof is the "Impossible Program"
>>>>> contradiction, no other proofs are mentioned the implication being
>>>>> that the Halting Problem is concerned with the contradiction
>>>>> alone.
>>>>
>>>> So, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the Theorem
>>>> associated with that Problem?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P2S2: A Summary of the Effect of the Theorem being Proven
>>>>>>> A key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a
>>>>>>> computer and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the
>>>>>>> halting problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one
>>>>>>> of the first cases of decision problems proven to be
>>>>>>> unsolvable. This proof is significant to practical computing
>>>>>>> efforts, defining a class of applications which no programming
>>>>>>> invention can possibly perform perfectly.
>>>>>
>>>>> "the" proof obviously refers to the previous proof and no other
>>>>> proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the
>>>> THEOREM about that Problem.
>>>>
>>>> Your intial statement was about THE PROBLEM.
>>>>
>>>> The Problem has NOTHING about the "Impossible Program" in it.
>>>>
>>>> The PROBLEM came first, as people were wondering it this idea of a
>>>> computing machine might be able to prove some of the problems that
>>>> they were intereseted in but couldn't solve.
>>>>
>>>> THEN came Alan Turing with a formalization of the Turing Machine,
>>>> showed that it could do any form of calculation, and the impossible
>>>> program that no Turing Machine could possible decide.
>>>>
>>>> This is what proved that a Halt Decider couldn't be created, and it
>>>> came AFTER the Halting Problem existed.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, the Halting PROBLEM is not about the Impossible Program, only
>>>> the Proof uses it.
>>>
>>> "the Proof" not "a Proof", ergo the Halting Problem has a symbiotic
>>> relationship with the "Impossible Program" proof alone.
>>>
>>> If you disagree then please present an alternative proof that has no
>>> relationship to the "Impossible Program" whatsoever if we are to
>>> progress this further.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> The big problem is the other proofs tend to require knowledge of some
>> higher level maths.
>>
>> Diagonalization is another simple proof, but that could be looked at
>> as the impossible program just with a different skin.
>>
>> One other source is from the uncomputability of the Busy Beaver
>> function (which is shown non-computable without reference to the
>> Halting Problem) for sufficiently large N.
>>
>> If Halting WAS determinable, then the Busy Beaver Function would be
>> computable by simple enumerating the full set of the finite number of
>> Turing Machines of the given size, weed out those that don't halt,
>> and run the ones that will and see what the longest output is.
>>
>> There are others, but I won't claim to know them well, or the math
>> behind them.
>
> You are failing to present a good case that the Halting Problem isn't
> all about the "Impossible Program" contradiction.
>
> /Flibble
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering

<20220828224741.0000455d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=38735&group=comp.theory#38735

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble is incompetent at software engineering
Message-ID: <20220828224741.0000455d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <20220827172848.00002eda@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<20220827200518.00002345@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Bf2dnVii05Vx8pf-nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tefcm7$jfn5$1@dont-email.me>
<v5IOK.865287$zgr9.246789@fx13.iad>
<20220828123458.000016e4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<oFIOK.998752$JVi.695236@fx17.iad>
<20220828125811.00005686@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QWIOK.844283$J0r9.808735@fx11.iad>
<20220828131850.00003222@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<0gNOK.110993$Eh2.36178@fx41.iad>
<20220828182003.00003bb7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<TFNOK.1191828$X_i.1121392@fx18.iad>
<20220828191901.000007fa@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<QbPOK.1191832$X_i.38861@fx18.iad>
<20220828202157.00003f8c@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ynPOK.792438$5fVf.768557@fx09.iad>
<20220828203820.00005e58@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<GfQOK.715605$vAW9.389716@fx10.iad>
<20220828213445.00002c71@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<BDQOK.1001610$JVi.478198@fx17.iad>
<20220828222322.00006dcb@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<KhROK.891825$70j.47021@fx16.iad>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 318
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 21:47:42 UTC
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 22:47:41 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 16863
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 28 Aug 2022 21:47 UTC

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:40:58 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 8/28/22 5:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:56:01 -0400
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/28/22 4:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 16:30:29 -0400
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/28/22 3:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:30:37 -0400
> >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/28/22 3:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:18:07 -0400
> >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:33:37 -0400
> >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 1:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:06:03 -0400
> >>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/22 8:18 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 08:10:23 -0400
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means it doesn't met THE definition from the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic Theory.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can define an alternate problem, and show a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution to that alternate problem, but it becomes a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie to imply that your solution applies to the original
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> classical problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't "my" definition, it is the classical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, which is presumed by people when you just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> say "The Halting Problem".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You get you choice, chose to be considered a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> person by implying something that isn't true, or be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful enough to make yourself clear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just use better and clearer terminology, like "The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> extended Halting Problem", and you won't get complaints
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of being deceitful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is part of the same problem that Olcott has,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> although in his case I think he doesn't understand that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he HAS tried to extend the definition to something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different, and thus gets stuck in lie loops.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is "classic theory" supposed to be? The very idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that definitions and theories cannot be refined is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense: this certainly isn't how science is supposed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to work. Science deals with moving targets as unlike
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with mathematical theories no scientific theory can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven, only falsified. So the question ultimately
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes is the Halting Problem a mathematical problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or a computer science problem? If the latter then my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> approach is perfectly valid: scientific theories EVOLVE.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Classical Theory is the Theory that everyone has been
> >>>>>>>>>>>> using.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Changing Definition is rarely actually done because it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can totally break a system, as you need to re-evaluate
> >>>>>>>>>>>> EVERYTHING that was done based on the old definition to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> see if it still holds, or how it changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes very minor refinements can be made, clearing up
> >>>>>>>>>>>> an ambiguity or loophole in the definition if reviewing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what changed can be easily done.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A Theory, once proved, is the same. You can remove
> >>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions or increase the guaranteed results as that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can't cause a backwards compatibility issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Improved" Theories can be created, but don't "replace"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the old. Relativity didn't replace classical mechanics,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> but just pointed out the limitations of them and showed
> >>>>>>>>>>>> how to handle cases that they couldn't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As to if it is Mathematics or Computer Science, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> answer is YES, because Computer Science is a BRANCH of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics, and is thus different than the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Physical"/Emperical Sciences that aren't (but use a lot
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of Mathematics). The Mathematical "Sciences" do deal with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Proofs".
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Agree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Given that, I would say the "Halting Problem" *as defined*
> >>>>>>>>>>> is uninteresting as it is concerned with the *specific*
> >>>>>>>>>>> problem of the contradiction of the "Impossible Program"
> >>>>>>>>>>> rather than the far more important *general* problem of
> >>>>>>>>>>> determining if a particular program given a particular
> >>>>>>>>>>> input halts. I am yet to be convinced that these two
> >>>>>>>>>>> problems are one in the same: I maintain that the
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Imposssible Program" contradiction is a red herring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, the Halting Problem was a significant problem a century
> >>>>>>>>>> ago as people were trying to figure out what was actually
> >>>>>>>>>> able to be done with finite work (Computability). Showing
> >>>>>>>>>> that not all attributes are computable established that
> >>>>>>>>>> there WERE limits to computations, and by some simple
> >>>>>>>>>> extensions, provability in logic.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem was a problem BEFORE the specific
> >>>>>>>>>> "Impossible Program" was discovered, and it was the
> >>>>>>>>>> discovery of it that established the limitation that we
> >>>>>>>>>> know today.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The impossible program is just an example of a particular
> >>>>>>>>>> program with a particular input. It should be noted that it
> >>>>>>>>>> isn't the ONLY sort of program that can't be decided on, it
> >>>>>>>>>> is just a simple enough one that the proof that it can't be
> >>>>>>>>>> decided on is simple enough for most people to understand.
> >>>>>>>>>> There are many other very different programs that also can
> >>>>>>>>>> not be decided if they halt or not by a computation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Then why don't you fix the Wikipedia page on the Halting
> >>>>>>>>> Problem which explicitly defines it to be based on the
> >>>>>>>>> "Impossible Program" contradiction:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why, it seems correct:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "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. Alan Turing proved in
> >>>>>>>>> 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem
> >>>>>>>>> for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which is the basic description of the halting problem,
> >>>>>>>> followed by the statement of Alan Turings Proof of the
> >>>>>>>> Halting Theorem which says the Problem is not solvable in
> >>>>>>>> General (One program to handle all possible inputs)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>>>>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass
> >>>>>>>>> its own source and its input to f and then specifically do
> >>>>>>>>> the opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist
> >>>>>>>>> that handles this case. A key part of the proof is a
> >>>>>>>>> mathematical definition of a computer and program, which is
> >>>>>>>>> known as a Turing machine; the halting problem is
> >>>>>>>>> undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the first
> >>>>>>>>> cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This
> >>>>>>>>> proof is significant to practical computing efforts,
> >>>>>>>>> defining a class of applications which no programming
> >>>>>>>>> invention can possibly perform perfectly."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which is the proof of the Theorem.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That is my point: according to Wikipedia the proof of the
> >>>>>>> Theorem is the "Impossible Program" contradiction: nothing
> >>>>>>> else is mentioned in these first two paragraphs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Only if you think the second paragraph is part of the
> >>>>>>>> definition, even though there was a sentence between them
> >>>>>>>> stating that the Theorem related to it was proven, do you get
> >>>>>>>> your conclusion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I see no such separating sentence.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To Quote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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. Alan Turing proved in
> >>>>>>> 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem
> >>>>>>> for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
> >>>>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
> >>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
> >>>>>>> handles this case. A key part of the proof is a mathematical
> >>>>>>> definition of a computer and program, which is known as a
> >>>>>>> Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable over Turing
> >>>>>>> machines. It is one of the first cases of decision problems
> >>>>>>> proven to be unsolvable. This proof is significant to
> >>>>>>> practical computing efforts, defining a class of applications
> >>>>>>> which no programming invention can possibly perform
> >>>>>>> perfectly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Breaking down into the sections:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> P1S1: The description of the 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> P1S2: The Statment of the Theorem and that it was proven
> >>>>>>> Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve
> >>>>>>> the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs
> >>>>>>> cannot exist.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> P2S1: An Overview of the Proof
> >>>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its
> >>>>>>> own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
> >>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
> >>>>>>> handles this case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, my point exactly, "the" Proof is the "Impossible Program"
> >>>>> contradiction, no other proofs are mentioned the implication
> >>>>> being that the Halting Problem is concerned with the
> >>>>> contradiction alone.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the
> >>>> Theorem associated with that Problem?
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> P2S2: A Summary of the Effect of the Theorem being Proven
> >>>>>>> A key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a
> >>>>>>> computer and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the
> >>>>>>> halting problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one
> >>>>>>> of the first cases of decision problems proven to be
> >>>>>>> unsolvable. This proof is significant to practical computing
> >>>>>>> efforts, defining a class of applications which no programming
> >>>>>>> invention can possibly perform perfectly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "the" proof obviously refers to the previous proof and no other
> >>>>> proof.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, are you talking about the PROBLEM, or the PROOF of the
> >>>> THEOREM about that Problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your intial statement was about THE PROBLEM.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Problem has NOTHING about the "Impossible Program" in it.
> >>>>
> >>>> The PROBLEM came first, as people were wondering it this idea of
> >>>> a computing machine might be able to prove some of the problems
> >>>> that they were intereseted in but couldn't solve.
> >>>>
> >>>> THEN came Alan Turing with a formalization of the Turing Machine,
> >>>> showed that it could do any form of calculation, and the
> >>>> impossible program that no Turing Machine could possible decide.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is what proved that a Halt Decider couldn't be created, and
> >>>> it came AFTER the Halting Problem existed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thus, the Halting PROBLEM is not about the Impossible Program,
> >>>> only the Proof uses it.
> >>>
> >>> "the Proof" not "a Proof", ergo the Halting Problem has a
> >>> symbiotic relationship with the "Impossible Program" proof alone.
> >>>
> >>> If you disagree then please present an alternative proof that has
> >>> no relationship to the "Impossible Program" whatsoever if we are
> >>> to progress this further.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> The big problem is the other proofs tend to require knowledge of
> >> some higher level maths.
> >>
> >> Diagonalization is another simple proof, but that could be looked
> >> at as the impossible program just with a different skin.
> >>
> >> One other source is from the uncomputability of the Busy Beaver
> >> function (which is shown non-computable without reference to the
> >> Halting Problem) for sufficiently large N.
> >>
> >> If Halting WAS determinable, then the Busy Beaver Function would be
> >> computable by simple enumerating the full set of the finite number
> >> of Turing Machines of the given size, weed out those that don't
> >> halt, and run the ones that will and see what the longest output
> >> is.
> >>
> >> There are others, but I won't claim to know them well, or the math
> >> behind them.
> >
> > You are failing to present a good case that the Halting Problem
> > isn't all about the "Impossible Program" contradiction.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> The fact that there was a period of time with the Halting Problem but
> no Impossible Program in sight should be a key point.
>
> Hard to create something about something you have no concept of.


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor