Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

IOT trap -- core dumped

devel / comp.theory / Re: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting

SubjectAuthor
* Simulating halt deciders are uninterestingMr Flibble
`* Simulating halt deciders are uninterestingolcott
 `* Simulating halt deciders are uninterestingMr Flibble
  `* Simulating halt deciders are uninterestingolcott
   `- Simulating halt deciders are uninterestingMr Flibble

1
Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting

<20221020232954.00005795@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=41086&group=comp.theory#41086

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.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: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting
Message-ID: <20221020232954.00005795@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
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: 27
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:29:53 UTC
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 23:29:54 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1810
 by: Mr Flibble - Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:29 UTC

Hi!

If we ignore the implications of [Strachey 1965] and only consider if
a "non-pathological" algorithm halts or not, the use of simulating
halt deciders (SHDs) simply doesn't fly (at least for the general case);
they can only consider a finite number of configurations of the finite
machine running the simulation whilst the Halting Problem concerns the
behaviour of ALGORITHMS. An algorithm in the purest sense should be
UNBOUNDED, i.e., it should not be constrained by a particular
IMPLEMENTATION:

* an algorithm should not be constrained by the word size of a machine
when considering integers or reals;
* a recursive algorithm should not be constrained by the stack size of
a thread of execution of a finite machine.

An SHD detecting a repeated configuration of a finite machine is not a
valid test for non-halting behavior for an ALGORITHM in the general
case.

Constraining an algorithm by a particular programming language and by
implication a particular program (executable) and its runtime
environment is bogus as far as the Halting Problem (and solving
interesting problems) is concerned.

/Flibble

Re: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting

<tiskg7$eav4$2@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=41089&group=comp.theory#41089

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:09:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <tiskg7$eav4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <20221020232954.00005795@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 23:09:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bfca1f2eeccbeea7e7eb31c6af8955c2";
logging-data="469988"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tTsUNEHaKZvkIsDxXdOPg"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.4.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DQBIobLxazBsDhaTvRGP0FEGwaI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <20221020232954.00005795@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
 by: olcott - Thu, 20 Oct 2022 23:09 UTC

On 10/20/2022 5:29 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Hi!
>
> If we ignore the implications of [Strachey 1965] and only consider if
> a "non-pathological" algorithm halts or not, the use of simulating
> halt deciders (SHDs) simply doesn't fly (at least for the general case);
> they can only consider a finite number of configurations of the finite
> machine running the simulation whilst the Halting Problem concerns the
> behaviour of ALGORITHMS. An algorithm in the purest sense should be
> UNBOUNDED, i.e., it should not be constrained by a particular
> IMPLEMENTATION:
>
> * an algorithm should not be constrained by the word size of a machine
> when considering integers or reals;
> * a recursive algorithm should not be constrained by the stack size of
> a thread of execution of a finite machine.
>
> An SHD detecting a repeated configuration of a finite machine is not a
> valid test for non-halting behavior for an ALGORITHM in the general
> case.
>
> Constraining an algorithm by a particular programming language and by
> implication a particular program (executable) and its runtime
> environment is bogus as far as the Halting Problem (and solving
> interesting problems) is concerned.
>
> /Flibble
>

You are not realizing that you are contradicting yourself.
Halt deciders are supposed to detect and reject non-finite algorithms.

--
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: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting

<20221021001417.00007064@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=41090&group=comp.theory#41090

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.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: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting
Message-ID: <20221021001417.00007064@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <20221020232954.00005795@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<tiskg7$eav4$2@dont-email.me>
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: 43
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 23:14:16 UTC
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:14:17 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 2387
 by: Mr Flibble - Thu, 20 Oct 2022 23:14 UTC

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:09:58 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/20/2022 5:29 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > If we ignore the implications of [Strachey 1965] and only consider
> > if a "non-pathological" algorithm halts or not, the use of
> > simulating halt deciders (SHDs) simply doesn't fly (at least for
> > the general case); they can only consider a finite number of
> > configurations of the finite machine running the simulation whilst
> > the Halting Problem concerns the behaviour of ALGORITHMS. An
> > algorithm in the purest sense should be UNBOUNDED, i.e., it should
> > not be constrained by a particular IMPLEMENTATION:
> >
> > * an algorithm should not be constrained by the word size of a
> > machine when considering integers or reals;
> > * a recursive algorithm should not be constrained by the stack size
> > of a thread of execution of a finite machine.
> >
> > An SHD detecting a repeated configuration of a finite machine is
> > not a valid test for non-halting behavior for an ALGORITHM in the
> > general case.
> >
> > Constraining an algorithm by a particular programming language and
> > by implication a particular program (executable) and its runtime
> > environment is bogus as far as the Halting Problem (and solving
> > interesting problems) is concerned.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> You are not realizing that you are contradicting yourself.

Then point out the contradiction.

> Halt deciders are supposed to detect and reject non-finite algorithms.

Nonsense. What is "non-finite algorithms" supposed to mean?

/Flibble

Re: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting

<tisl4o$eav4$3@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=41091&group=comp.theory#41091

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:20:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <tisl4o$eav4$3@dont-email.me>
References: <20221020232954.00005795@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<tiskg7$eav4$2@dont-email.me> <20221021001417.00007064@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 23:20:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bfca1f2eeccbeea7e7eb31c6af8955c2";
logging-data="469988"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bNrwnBRkQtpT/21bQo2JJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.4.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rqWpkzKshOWTFNsEy5rV4pTBtqk=
In-Reply-To: <20221021001417.00007064@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Thu, 20 Oct 2022 23:20 UTC

On 10/20/2022 6:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:09:58 -0500
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2022 5:29 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> If we ignore the implications of [Strachey 1965] and only consider
>>> if a "non-pathological" algorithm halts or not, the use of
>>> simulating halt deciders (SHDs) simply doesn't fly (at least for
>>> the general case); they can only consider a finite number of
>>> configurations of the finite machine running the simulation whilst
>>> the Halting Problem concerns the behaviour of ALGORITHMS. An
>>> algorithm in the purest sense should be UNBOUNDED, i.e., it should
>>> not be constrained by a particular IMPLEMENTATION:
>>>
>>> * an algorithm should not be constrained by the word size of a
>>> machine when considering integers or reals;
>>> * a recursive algorithm should not be constrained by the stack size
>>> of a thread of execution of a finite machine.
>>>
>>> An SHD detecting a repeated configuration of a finite machine is
>>> not a valid test for non-halting behavior for an ALGORITHM in the
>>> general case.
>>>
>>> Constraining an algorithm by a particular programming language and
>>> by implication a particular program (executable) and its runtime
>>> environment is bogus as far as the Halting Problem (and solving
>>> interesting problems) is concerned.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> You are not realizing that you are contradicting yourself.
>
> Then point out the contradiction.
>
>> Halt deciders are supposed to detect and reject non-finite algorithms.
>
> Nonsense. What is "non-finite algorithms" supposed to mean?
>
> /Flibble
>
>

halt_decider(input)
if input specifies an infinite sequence of configurations
return false // non-halting sequence

--
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: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting

<20221021003723.0000565e@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=41092&group=comp.theory#41092

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx15.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulating halt deciders are uninteresting
Message-ID: <20221021003723.0000565e@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <20221020232954.00005795@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<tiskg7$eav4$2@dont-email.me>
<20221021001417.00007064@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<tisl4o$eav4$3@dont-email.me>
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: 58
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 23:37:23 UTC
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:37:23 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 2971
 by: Mr Flibble - Thu, 20 Oct 2022 23:37 UTC

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:20:55 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/20/2022 6:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:09:58 -0500
> > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/20/2022 5:29 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>> If we ignore the implications of [Strachey 1965] and only consider
> >>> if a "non-pathological" algorithm halts or not, the use of
> >>> simulating halt deciders (SHDs) simply doesn't fly (at least for
> >>> the general case); they can only consider a finite number of
> >>> configurations of the finite machine running the simulation whilst
> >>> the Halting Problem concerns the behaviour of ALGORITHMS. An
> >>> algorithm in the purest sense should be UNBOUNDED, i.e., it should
> >>> not be constrained by a particular IMPLEMENTATION:
> >>>
> >>> * an algorithm should not be constrained by the word size of a
> >>> machine when considering integers or reals;
> >>> * a recursive algorithm should not be constrained by the stack
> >>> size of a thread of execution of a finite machine.
> >>>
> >>> An SHD detecting a repeated configuration of a finite machine is
> >>> not a valid test for non-halting behavior for an ALGORITHM in the
> >>> general case.
> >>>
> >>> Constraining an algorithm by a particular programming language and
> >>> by implication a particular program (executable) and its runtime
> >>> environment is bogus as far as the Halting Problem (and solving
> >>> interesting problems) is concerned.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> You are not realizing that you are contradicting yourself.
> >
> > Then point out the contradiction.
> >
> >> Halt deciders are supposed to detect and reject non-finite
> >> algorithms.
> >
> > Nonsense. What is "non-finite algorithms" supposed to mean?
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
> >
>
> halt_decider(input)
> if input specifies an infinite sequence of configurations
> return false // non-halting sequence

You seem to be confusing the constraints imposed on an algorithm with
whether or not an algorithm halts.

/Flibble

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.8
clearnet tor