1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Defining problems to make solutions impossible --- Obsolete Views a

    From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Mar 16 02:38:34 2025
    On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:34:03 -0500, olcott wrote:

    On 3/15/2025 9:24 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 3/15/2025 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/15/2025 5:52 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 3/15/2025 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/15/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/15/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/15/2025 8:08 AM, dbush wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 10:10 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:
    (1) What time is it (yes or no)?
    (2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?


    The correct answer is that no number satisfies that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly stated requirement


    Incorrect answer type mismatch error the problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification requires an integer and this integer is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed to be construed as Boolean.

    So the prerequisite question is does an integer exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that meets the specification, and the answer is no. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    (1) What time is it (yes or no)?


    (3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D can actually does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in to a problem having no solution.

    And as above, the correct answer is that no H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies that clearly stated requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    In the same way that "this sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.

    The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly for all X and Y?  And the answer is no. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the counter-example input?

    Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this definition exists:


    That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say.


    In other words, you don't understand proof by
    contradiction, a concept taught to and understood by high >>>>>>>>>>>>>> school students more that 50 years your junior.


    We assume that someone can correctly answer this question: >>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?

    Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>> that our assumption was false.

    Because the counter-example input derives a self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction proving

    That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> below requirements is false:


    What integer N is > 5 and < 2

    So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We >>>>>>>>>>>> then find the above question can't be answered, therefore the >>>>>>>>>>>> assumption that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false. >>>>>>>>>>>>


    In each of the questions there is a BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  >>>>>>>>>>> VALID FORM

    BOGUS FORM *This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example >>>>>>>>>>> input* What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return >>>>>>>>>>> for input D that does the opposite of whatever value that H >>>>>>>>>>> returns? (answer required to be Boolean)
    NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

    By saying "halt decider H" you're assuming that an H exist that >>>>>>>>>> reports if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y. >>>>>>>>>>

    Likewise when we assume a True(X) predicate where X = "What time >>>>>>>>> is it?"

    Invalid change of subject.  This will be taken as agreement.


    It is the title of the post.

    Determining the Boolean value of "What time it is?"
    and determining the correct Boolean value for H to return are the >>>>>>> same in that both Boolean values are incorrect.

    When-so-ever both Boolean values are the wrong answer to a Boolean >>>>>>> question the question itself is incorrect and must be rejected as >>>>>>> erroneous.

    Calling any such question or decision problem instance any kind of >>>>>>> undecidable is flat out dishonest.

    The kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak prevents a
    True(X) predicate that could otherwise eviscerate Nazi lies the
    moment that are spoken.


    But the ACTUAL question of the problem has a correct answer, just
    not the one that the decider gives, so it is just incorrect.


    The inability to do the logically impossible is dishonestly referred >>>>> to as undecidability.


    If your whole argument boils down to "it must be wrong because I
    don't like the name", you have less than no argument.

    We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except
    for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!


    I'll let you respond to yourself:


    My current views make many of my prior views obsolete.
    I hardly ever said that a True(X) predicate IS ONLY limited by untruths
    and unknowns.
    IF TRUE THIS PROVES THAT TARSKI IS WRONG.

    Fish fingers are only true when baked beans are orthogonal to unicorns otherwise fish fingers might still be true.

    False.

    /Flibble

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