Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: THE HALT() PROOF IS THE GREATEST ERROR OF MANKIND IN ALL HISTORY!!!
Replies: 5   Last Post: May 31, 2012 5:53 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Graham Cooper Posts: 4,495 Registered: 5/20/10
Re: THE HALT() PROOF IS THE GREATEST ERROR OF MANKIND IN ALL HISTORY!!!
Posted: May 31, 2012 5:53 PM

On May 31, 11:39 pm, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On May 30, 10:53 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On May 31, 10:01 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On May 30, 3:22 am, "INFINITY POWER" <infin...@limited.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The Halting Conjecture is merely a moronic statement that we already knew
> > > > about a Halt function that works on every function except itself.

>
> > > You're an IDIOT.  Saying that you have a Halt function that works on
> > > every function except itself
> > > is LIKE saying you have a number that's larger than every number
> > > except itself.  IT ISN'T, DUMBASS.

>
> > No it's like using an axiom of REGULARITY, no cyclic HALT() network!
>
> You DON'T GET to suspend the axiom of regularity IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
> NATURAL NUMBERS.

WE ARE *INVOKING* A.O.R. in the model of computation.

> There really is a STARTING natural number (0) and there really is a
> SIMPLEST program (Halt).
> Foundation and regularity REALLY ARE REAL in a context where all the
> programs HAVE to have a natural number of
> states and every cell on the tape HAS to have a natural number as its
> position and the alphabet HAS to have a natural
> number of characters and every time-step HAS to be a natural number of
> steps after start.
> The fact that you don't cycle is a consequence of the fact that you
> CAN'T go INFINITELY far IN EITHER the before OR AFTER
> directions, and although there is no pre-set limit as to how far you
> can go "after", THERE IS one as to how far you can go "before".
> Regularity HAPPENS in this context and you do NOT get to relax it to
> something MERELY acylical.  *NOT* THAT *YOU* WOULD EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT
> WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THIS CONTEXT, IN ANY CASE.
>

WE ARE *NOT* disputing the HALT CONJECTURE.

BUT- the ACTUAL INTERPRETATION in context is merely that

HALT() IS NOT A REFELEXIVE FUNCTION

This is a limit of scope, not computability or possibility.

>
>

> > > In ADDITION to not being larger than itself, it IS ALSO not larger
> > > than THE INFINITELY MANY  numbers
> > > that ARE GREATER than itself.  Any TM-computable function HAS A FINITE
> > > code-string and A FINITE
> > > number of states!  THERE ARE *ALWAYS* going to be INFINITELY  MANY
> > > BIGGER, BADDER programs
> > > with MORE states and DEEPER chains of recursion and LONGER code-
> > > strings whose behavior IS TOO complex
> > > for ANY ONE PRE-chosen program to analyze!

>
> > > Dumbass.
>
> > Here's a more Procedural syntax than BLACK BOX Turing Machines..
>
> Nobody CARES, dumbass.  TMs can do ANYthing (that anything else, that
> actually exists, can do).
> No alternatives is NEEDED, therefore no alternative is relevant.  More
> to the point, TMs ARE NOT "black box".
> TMs come WITH a whole MATRIX of state-transitions.   YOU CAN SEE
> INSIDE the box, for TMs.
> IF you are going to talk "black box" then you are talking about the
> opposite of  TMs, not  about TMs.

Not at all, finite automata is defined as a black box with an input
string and output result.

TMs are an extension of black box automata only.

You are merely defining computation into a corner.

IF you use TM's fine, but you are not talking about THAT TM, you are
talking about the 2 PROCESSES that the 1 core TM must emulate.

BASICALLY YOU HAVE A RULE OF COMPETITION - A CLAIM

************SCI.MATH************

|ZFC| > |TM|

|MATHS EXPRESSIONS| > |COMPUTABLE EXPRESSIONS|

THEN YOU, AS THE SELF ADJUDICATORS, ALSO MAKE_THE_RULES!

MATHS WILL USE THIS RULE SET!

ZFC
---
1. Extensionality:
AxAy [Az (zex <-> zey) -> xey]
2. Regularity:
Ax [Ea (aex) <-> Ey (yex & ~Ez (zey & zex))]
3. Specification Schema:
AzAw_1...w_nEyAx [xey <-> (xez & phi)]
4. Pairing:
AxAyEz (xez & yez)
5. Union:
AfEaAyAx [(xey & yef) -> xea]
6. Replacement Schema:
AaAw_1...w_n [Ax (xea -> E!y phi) -> EbAx (xea -> Ey (yeb & phi)]
7. Infinity:
Ex [0ex & Ay (yex -> S(y)ex)]
8. Powerset:
AxEyAz [z subset x -> zey]
9. Wellordering:
AxEr (r wellorders x)

WHERE SUCH THINGS OF SCOPE OF DOMAIN ARE DEFINABLE

COMPUTATION CAN USE THIS RULE SET!

INPUT BINARY STRING -> OUTPUT BINARY STRING

" SEE - you can't compute things we can define! "

Herc
--
THE FOUNDATION OF NUMBERS BY CANTOR!

-> 2^aleph_0 > aleph_0

-> 2x2x2x2... > 1+1+1+1...

Incomplete..Inconsistent..Uncomputable..Uncountable..
Unformalizable..Unspecifiable..NotUniversal..NotVerifiable

Date Subject Author
5/30/12 INFINITY POWER
5/30/12 george
5/30/12 Porky Pig Jr
5/30/12 Graham Cooper
5/31/12 Graham Cooper