On 7/9/23, Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/23, Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
maybe it bears some similarity to that turing problem of predicting the completion of another code turing’s contrived counterexample places power regarding prediction and control in such a way that the goal cannot succeed. of course this proof also disproves itself in some ways because the code in question must be able to predict the behavior of the halting-prediction code.
i often get in arguments with mathematicians because i don’t learn much math theory. we both walk away thinking we are right.
i would, for the purposes of this larger concept, assuming that a halting problem can be fully solved only if it is contrived such that it has more capability to predict its test processes than they have to predict it.
you can make physical systems where both have an equal ability to predict the other, and you then reach a logical real physical conclusion where the answer is indeterminate because the action of each depends on the choice of other in fair balance.
uhh so quick argument against halting problem: the halting detector’s data is not input data to the detection function. considering only pure function -like behavior, it looks solvable to me. i am not a mathematician, and have not read the problem in depth.