Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



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 timestep 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 preset 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 TMcomputable function HAS A FINITE > > > codestring 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 PREchosen 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 statetransitions. 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!
AD[r]=/=LIST[r,r] > AD[r]=/=LIST[r,r]
> 2^aleph_0 > aleph_0
> 2x2x2x2... > 1+1+1+1...
Incomplete..Inconsistent..Uncomputable..Uncountable.. Unformalizable..Unspecifiable..NotUniversal..NotVerifiable



