Re: countability of reals
From: |-|erc (h_at_r.c)
Date: 01/05/05
- Next message: Aratzio: "Re: VOTE! - Usenet Kook Awards, December 2004"
- Previous message: A N Niel: "Re: Not relevant to mathematics but,"
- In reply to: mareg_at_mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk: "Re: countability of reals"
- Next in thread: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: countability of reals"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: countability of reals"
- Reply: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: countability of reals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:39:34 +1000
<mareg@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in
> In article <mckenzie-2C54C2.13225505012005@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
> Alec McKenzie <mckenzie@despammed.com> writes:
> > "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Clue: when something has been proved to be impossible, and
> >> the proof is simple enough to be understood by anyone with
> >> a passing score in ninth grade algebra, posting a muddled
> >> mess claiming to have done that impossible thing anyway to
> >> a newsgroup frequented by folks with earned PhDs in math
> >> is a fast track to ridicule and Usenet kookdom nominations.
> >
> >In my view it is just possible (though very unlikely) that a proof
> >"simple enough to be understood by anyone with a passing
> >score in ninth grade algebra" might contain a flaw so subtle that
> >it has not yet been spotted by "folks with earned PhDs in math".
> >
> >Do you really consider this to be an absolute impossibility?
>
> Well, personally, I would be less surprised if I were to be unexepctedly
> teleported to Mars (which, according to the laws of quantum mechanics,
> is not absolutely impossible) than I would be if there were to be a flaw
> in the proof that there is no bijection between the rational and irrational
> numbers.
>
> Derek Holt.
funny, are you sure you're not quoting a mob of text book authors there.
100s of you online posted the same thing about the halt proof just months ago,
then after 20,000 posts here over 4 months, I disproved Halt and its been silent since.
you all stop talking. the sci.math law, no one can make new mathematics online.
From: |-|erc (gotch@beauty.com)
Subject: R3COGNITION OF THE HALTING SOLN
View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory, rec.org.mensa, comp.ai.philosophy
Date: 2004-09-12 20:46:07 PST
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in >
> Thanks for the probability idea about a real-world solution to
> the Halting Problem recently when you were feeling well. Of all
> those who talked about that in real-world context, you had the
> best idea in my opinion. I think that was a major contribution,
> and I am sure I will be able to use that idea someday.
>
> Larry
Thank you Larry, Halt() is a big nut to crack. Here is the outline of
the solution for those who missed it among the heated discussion.
halt(f, a) -> pHalt2(n) -> P(UTM(n, f(a))='halt') = 0.5
!halt(f, a) -> pHalt2(n) -> UTM(n, f(a))='don't know'
pHalt2 is an (infinite) set of functions that satisfy pHalt below, with the added
contraint P(UTM(n, f(a))='halt') = 0.5. Therefore a randomly selected pHalt
function has 50% odds of answering the halt program for some given input.
(different set notation)
halt(f, a) -> En, n e pHalt, UTM(n, f(a))=true
!halt(f, a) -> An, n e pHalt, UTM(n, f(a))='don't know'
For example, pHalt could be an infinite set of Universal Turing Machines,
but they timeout after various amounts of time. If the parameter f(a) halted
in that time then it outputs TRUE, otherwise it timed out and outputs DONTKNOW.
Since the number of these partial Halt functions is infinite, we should come across
one with enough test cycles to determine if any function halts.
By itself pHalt is still useless as it only gives one output value, HALTS. But if
each pHalt function has 50% chance of being correct (something more powerful
than the UTM), then determining NOTHALT is a simple probabilistic procedure.
e.g.
pHalt2() = {2, 6, 33, 655, ..}
i.e.
pHalt(2) = true
pHalt2(6) = true
pHalt2(33) = true
..
pHalt2 is an infinite set of godel numbers whos functions can be parsed by a UTM.
each of these functions has independant probability of 50% of answering if the input function
halts, otherwise it will return DONTKNOW.
As an example.
the program with godel number 999 is
10 goto 10
UTM(2, 999) = DONTKNOW (ignoring the parameter of function 999)
UTM(6, 999) = DONTKNOW
UTM(33, 999) = DONTKNOW
UTM(655, 999) = DONTKNOW
...
Since :
!halt(f, a) -> pHalt2(n) -> UTM(n, f(a))='don't know'
the program with godel number 1000 is
10 print 10
UTM(2, 1000) = HALT
UTM(6, 1000) = DONTKNOW
UTM(33, 1000) = HALT
UTM(655, 1000) = DONTKNOW
Given :
halt(f, a) -> pHalt2(n) -> P(UTM(n, f(a))='halt') = 0.5
>From these outputs we can determine *without running the programs*
1/ program 999 does not halt with probability of error 1/16
2/ program 1000 halts
A *solution* to the halting problem is apparent, but it cannot be fully represented as
an *algorithm*, so the halting proof will fail here to surface a contradiction.
Herc
This is the only article in this thread
- Next message: Aratzio: "Re: VOTE! - Usenet Kook Awards, December 2004"
- Previous message: A N Niel: "Re: Not relevant to mathematics but,"
- In reply to: mareg_at_mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk: "Re: countability of reals"
- Next in thread: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: countability of reals"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: countability of reals"
- Reply: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: countability of reals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
