Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation
From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/19/04
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: Barb Knox: "Re: Attempt to halt the refuting problem"
- In reply to: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation"
- Next in thread: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation"
- Reply: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:44:22 GMT
<newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message news:RGTUc.185717$eM2.167175@attbi_s51...
> In comp.theory Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > No this is not it. Its more like this.
> >
> > // Here is the UTM function header
> > //
> > int ThereAreTransitionsOutOfThisState(int StateNumber)
> > {
> > if (StateTransitionMatrix[StateNumber] == STATE_TRANSITION)
> > return 1;
> > else
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > // Here is the halt analyzer using this function
> > //
> > if (ThereAreTransitionsOutOfThisState(HaltAnalyzerFinalState))
> > return;
> > else
> > // Analyze the input TM and write a ONE to the tape it it halts
> > // or a ZERO to the tape if it fails to halt
>
> This is very imprecise since your "ThereAreTransitionsOutOfThisState"
> function returns information to the UTM at the request of the UTM. If
No it does not. It looks like you might be another person that
only glances at a few words before forming a refutation or reply.
This is not what I said, and what I said is not ambiguous. If you
can't do much better at getting the meanings that I am providing,
I might have to give up on you. I am already spending every bit
of all of my free time on this. I am not inclined to waste any of
this time.
> you want the program *run* by the UTM to be able to query this
> information, then you have to specify how that works.
>
> You can do this with the definition I gave above, and accomplish
> exactly what you want to accomplish. I will not require you to take
> my definition, since it's your argument, but here's how my definition
> works with your argument: If you have a halt analyzer, say a function
> PHA(machine,input) [PHA is "Peter's Halt Analyzer"], then the first
> thing it can do with my definition of a PUTM is to ask for the state
> transition table -- it can then compare this with what it knows PHA is
> to determine if there is anything at all other than PHA being run. If
> anything else is there, it halts without giving an answer. Only if it
> is run completely by itself in the PUTM then will it give a ONE or
> ZERO answer. This way, if PHA is called from WillHalt, it will not
> return a value, so WillHalt doesn't have anything to work with, so we
> can't make the standard contradiction. That's the gist of your
> argument, right?
>
> Again, I don't want to force you into using my definition, but that's
> my explanation of how it will support your argument. If you don't
> like my definition, then feel free to give a decent definition. But
> you must show how a program fun on the PUTM can make this special
> query and use its results, so what you've written above isn't a valid
> definition. The program must be able to do the query, not the PUTM
> (which will supply the answer to the program), because the PUTM has no
> purpose other than to run the program.
>
> >> Is that a good enough model for you to construct your halt analyzer?
> >>
> >> ========================================================================
> >>
> >> Summary of things before this posting.
> >>
> >> Definitions:
> >> 1) The "halting problem" takes a machine M and input x and decides
> >> whether or not M halts when started with input x
> >> 2) An algorithm/program "solves the halting problem" if it correctly
> >> decides the halting problem for all input pairs (M,x)
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> That's News To Me!
> >> newstome@comcast.net
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> That's News To Me!
> newstome@comcast.net
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: Barb Knox: "Re: Attempt to halt the refuting problem"
- In reply to: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation"
- Next in thread: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation"
- Reply: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|