Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
-
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified it for people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not true.” is not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this self-contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked] changes the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly ignored. When Carol's question is posed to Carol it has no correct answer.
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Carol's question when posed to Carol meets the definition of an incorrect question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} are the wrong answer.
Simplified Halting Problem Proof
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not true.” is not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this self-contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked] changes the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly ignored. When Carol's question is posed to Carol it has no correct answer.
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Carol's question when posed to Carol meets the definition of an incorrect question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} are the wrong answer.
Simplified Halting Problem Proof
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
Nothing prevents Carol from answering yes/no to your question.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 2:29 pm A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified it for people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not true.” is not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this self-contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked] changes the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly ignored. When Carol's question is posed to Carol it has no correct answer.
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Carol's question when posed to Carol meets the definition of an incorrect question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} are the wrong answer.
Simplified Halting Problem Proof
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
You have not defined what it means for the answer to be "correct". Define your terms; or formalize your question.
Here's your code.
Code: Select all
In [1]: def ask():
...: answer = carol('Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?')
...: print(f'Carol answered {answer}')
...: print(f'The answer was {is_correct(answer)}')
...:
In [2]: def carol(question):
...: from random import choice
...: return choice(["Yes", "No"])
...:
In [3]: ask()
Carol answered No
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NameError Traceback (most recent call last)
Cell In[3], line 1
----> 1 ask()
Cell In[1], line 4, in ask()
2 answer = carol("Can you answer this question correctly?")
3 print(f'Carol answered {answer}')
----> 4 print(f'The answer was {is_correct(answer)}')
NameError: name 'is_correct' is not defined
-
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
The computer scientist that wrote Carol's question said:
If she says “yes”, she's saying that “no” is the correct answer for her, so “yes”
is incorrect. If she says “no”, she's saying that she cannot correctly answer “no”,
which is her answer. So both answers are incorrect.
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
The person who is stating the question determines what the question means.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 4:13 pm Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
The computer scientist that wrote Carol's question said:
If she says “yes”, she's saying that “no” is the correct answer for her, so “yes”
is incorrect. If she says “no”, she's saying that she cannot correctly answer “no”,
which is her answer. So both answers are incorrect.
It's not Carol's problem that you've only given her two choices (yes/no). She's just flipping a coin...
It's on you to explain why the answer is "correct" or "incorrect".
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Oct 15, 2023 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
Words stipulate their own meaning.
"I am going to the store to buy some cake"
does not mean
{I am going to vaccumn my carpet}.
"I am going to the store to buy some cake"
does not mean
{I am going to vaccumn my carpet}.
Last edited by PeteOlcott on Sun Oct 15, 2023 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
Nonsense. Undefined terms are meaningless in a computational setting.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 4:23 pm Words stipulate their own meaning.
"I am going to the store to buy some cake does not mean"
{I am going to vaccumn my carpet}.
Carol's just flipping a coin.
Code: Select all
random.choice(["Yes", "No"])
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Oct 15, 2023 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
Carol's question is not a computational setting.
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
Then you can't constrain Carol to a yes/no answer.
Carol rebuts with "Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking me. Define 'correct'"
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
How's this not a computational setting?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 4:13 pm Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
-
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
The words already have meanings that need not be redundantly specified.
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
If it was redundant Carol wouldn't ask you to elaborate; or even paraphrase the question.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 4:43 pm The words already have meanings that need not be redundantly specified.
If it was redundant I wouldn't be asking you to formalize your question as a decision procedure.
-
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
Your name says your motives.
Your primary goal has always been to thwart any honest dialogue.
Your primary goal has always been to thwart any honest dialogue.
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
My primary goal has always been definability.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 5:43 pm Your name says your motives.
Your primary goal has always been to thwart any honest dialogue.
Define your terms.
-
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
You are shooting for infinite regress.
Whatever definition is provided is infinitely not good enough.
Prove that I am wrong by providing a definition that you would accept.
Whatever definition is provided is infinitely not good enough.
Prove that I am wrong by providing a definition that you would accept.
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
You want me to define the terms in your question?!?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 6:22 pm You are shooting for infinite regress.
Whatever definition is provided is infinitely not good enough.
Prove that I am wrong by providing a definition that you would accept.
How am I supposed to figure out what you mean? Read your mind?