Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement

[Skepdick]

There are only two possible things H can do:
(1) H says D halts making D loop
(2) H says D loops making D halt

That's an incomplete specification.

It makes no mention of what H believes D will do.

[PeteOlcott]

There are only two possible things H can do:
(1) H says D halts making D loop
(2) H says D loops making D halt

That's an incomplete specification.

It makes no mention of what H believes D will do.

You don't understand computational determinism.
I have two patents on deterministic finite automata, thus I know computational determinism.

[Skepdick]

You don't understand computational determinism.
I have two patents on deterministic finite automata, thus I know computational determinism.

Your ignorance doesn't amount to understanding; or knowledge.

Social recognition isn't the same as knowledge; or understanding. In fact - they often diverge.

[Skepdick]

<gross misconception>

Here's your problem.... You have a a deep and profound misconception and a misunderstanding.
You don't understand the difference between a requirement and a prediction.

You can't even specify your own operating context and you seem to be conflating them which causes your circular reasoning.

Is H requiring D to do as H says; or is H predicting that D will do as H says?
One is descriptive one is prescriptive.

If you are in the context of requirements then the answer is very very easy:

if H requires D to halt then H should say "D will not halt." which will cause D to halt.
if H requires D to NOT halt then H should say "D will halt." which will cause D to NOT halt.

Now if you want to do prediction the scenario changes

If H says that D will halt H should also predict that D won't halt.
If H says that D won't halt H should also predict that D will halt.

[commonsense]

D is not a mind-reader and doesn't know what H guessed.
D only knows what H said.

H now has a valid theory of how D works.
It does the opposite of what you say.

Whatever H says D does the opposite making it logical
impossible for H to correctly say what D will do.

Where's the impossibility?

D does EXACTLY what H guessed (but didn't say).

Of course, H can't SAY what D will do. Because D will do the opposite.
but H can correctly guess what D will do.

H can only say the opposite of what H believes if it can be known that D will do the opposite of what H says and not the opposite of what H believes.

H cannot know what D does before D does it.

Without such knowledge, H can make a guess but not an a useful prediction.

[Skepdick]

H can only say the opposite of what H believes if it can be known that D will do the opposite of what H says and not the opposite of what H believes.

Precisely

H cannot know what D does before D does it.

That's not true.

H can be 100% certain that D will do exactly the opposite of whatever H says.

Without such knowledge, H can make a guess but not an a useful prediction.

They coincide. Precisely because H's words determine D's behaviour. D is deterministic.

[commonsense]

H can only say the opposite of what H believes if it can be known that D will do the opposite of what H says and not the opposite of what H believes.

Precisely

H cannot know what D does before D does it.

That's not true.

H can be 100% certain that D will do exactly the opposite of whatever H says.

Without such knowledge, H can make a guess but not an a useful prediction.

They coincide. Precisely because H's words determine D's behaviour.

Yes, but how does H know that H’s words determine D’s behavior?

[Skepdick]

Yes, but how does H know that H’s words determine D’s behavior?

D is designed that way. To do the exact opposite of what H says.

So we can design H with the knowledge of D's behaviour too; and we can leverage this knowledge to predict/cause the future.

This is how all science works in principle... We understand how nature behaves. We can cause the future somewhat deterministically.

[commonsense]

Yes, but how does H know that H’s words determine D’s behavior?

D is designed that way. To do the exact opposite of what H says.

So we can design H with the knowledge of D's behaviour too; and we can leverage this knowledge to predict/cause the future.

This is how all science works in principle... We understand how nature behaves. We can cause the future somewhat deterministically.

OK—I see. But how do we understand how nature behaves, or how anything behaves, without historical knowledge based on prior experience?


We can design H & D as we choose, but how can we recognize that we are achieving the goal we intend without prior experience?

[Skepdick]

OK—I see. But how do we understand how nature behaves, or how anything behaves, without historical knowledge based on prior experience?

Sure. Obtain the historical knowledge. After a handful of attempts you should spot the pattern of its contrarianism.

Your knowledge would be probabilistic, but despite never be 100% certain D will never disapoint you in its contrarianims.

We can design H & D as we choose, but how can we recognize that we are achieving the goal we intend without prior experience?

Computers are deterministic. They do what you tell them to.

You might have to iterate a few times before you get it right, but ultimately H and D have very simple internal and are trivial to implement.

[commonsense]

OK—I see. But how do we understand how nature behaves, or how anything behaves, without historical knowledge based on prior experience?

Sure. Obtain the historical knowledge. After a handful of attempts you should spot the pattern of its contrarianism.

Your knowledge would be probabilistic, but despite never be 100% certain D will never disapoint you in its contrarianims.

We can design H & D as we choose, but how can we recognize that we are achieving the goal we intend without prior experience?

Computers are deterministic. They do what you tell them to.

You might have to iterate a few times before you get it right, but ultimately H and D have very simple internal and are trivial to implement.

OK. You’ve convinced me now. Thanks for your comments.

[PeteOlcott]

There are only two possible things H can do:
(1) H says D halts making D loop
(2) H says D loops making D halt

That's an incomplete specification.

It makes no mention of what H believes D will do.

You know that Turing Machines have no volition so you resorted
back to trollish behavior that you know has nothing to do with
an honest dialogue.

[PeteOlcott]

H can only say the opposite of what H believes if it can be known that D will do the opposite of what H says and not the opposite of what H believes.

Precisely

H cannot know what D does before D does it.

That's not true.

H can be 100% certain that D will do exactly the opposite of whatever H says.

Without such knowledge, H can make a guess but not an a useful prediction.

They coincide. Precisely because H's words determine D's behaviour.

Yes, but how does H know that H’s words determine D’s behavior?

It is not actually words. I phrased it that way so that people that
know nothing about computers could get the gist of the idea.

When D receives a Boolean return value from H that is true
meaning that H is saying that D will halt D goes into an infinite loop.

When D receives a Boolean return value from H that is false
meaning that H is saying that D will loop D halts.

Anything that H can {say, predict, believe or guess}
that D will do is always contradicted by D.

[Skepdick]

There are only two possible things H can do:
(1) H says D halts making D loop
(2) H says D loops making D halt

That's an incomplete specification.

It makes no mention of what H believes D will do.

You know that Turing Machines have no volition so you resorted
back to trollish behavior that you know has nothing to do with
an honest dialogue.

What volition are you talking about, idiot? Your constant meltdowns are getting tiresome.

All I am talking about is one extra line of code.

Code: Select all

prediction=True/False # We predict D will or won't halt
return not(prediction) # We return the negation to D

[PeteOlcott]

Anything that H can {say, predict, believe or guess}
that D will do is always contradicted by D.