1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.LOGIC

  • Re: Defining problems to make solutions impossible --- Incorrect Polar

    From Fred. Zwarts@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 18 10:15:14 2025
    XPost: comp.theory

    Op 18.mrt.2025 om 04:55 schreef olcott:
    On 3/17/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/17/25 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/17/2025 11:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 17.mrt.2025 om 16:21 schreef olcott:
    On 3/17/2025 4:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 17.mrt.2025 om 00:03 schreef olcott:
    On 3/16/2025 3:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 16.mrt.2025 om 20:32 schreef olcott:

    Only when the problem is defined to require H to return
    a correct halt status value for an input that is actually
    able to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.

    Read what I said: "all possible inputs". So, indeed, this input >>>>>>>> is included. So we agree that no such algorithm exists.

    Square_Root("This does not have a square root")


    Irrelevant change of subject. No rebuttal.


    It proves that there is such a thing as invalid inputs.
    Invalid inputs are isomorphic to incorrect polar questions.

    The logical law of polar questions copyright PL Olcott 2015
    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

    An incorrect polar question is any polar question such that both
    yes and no are the wrong answer.

    In the specific halting Problem instance of the HHH/DD
    pair the halting problem question: Does your input halt?
    has much more details:

    What correct Boolean value can HHH return when DD is able
    to do the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns?

    Since both true and false are the wrong answer then this
    specific HHH/DD problem instance IS AN IN CORRECT POLAR QUESTION.


    I conclude that we agree that the answer on the question: "Does an >>>>>> algorithm exist that for all possible inputs returns whether it
    describes a halting program in direct execution" is 'No'.

    Is it so difficult for Olcott to express his (dis)agreement?



    I am not talking about simulations, but about direct execution.

    THIS IS ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE. NO TM CAN EVER
    LOOK AT THE DIRECT EXECUTION OF ANOTHER TM.


    Which is irrelevent.

    It can't report on what it cannot see.
    Requirements that it must report on what
    it cannot see are incorrect.

    So, we agree that the answer on the question: "Does an algorithm exist
    that for all possible inputs returns whether it describes a halting
    program in direct execution" is 'No'. Correct?

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