quentron.com

[lumen]

So your ANALYZER must contain some part that recognizes a loop and then calls a function to determine if the loop ends or not right?Just answer the question above please.Depends on what you mean by "all encompassing" (you're being terribly vague again).  The idea that there exists no algorithm to solve some particular, well-defined problem (and by extension no device can be built which solves said problem) isn't any different than saying there exists no integer which satisfies 2 * X = 3.  If that's "all-encompassing" then you are, of course wrong.  If it's not "all-encompassing", then neither is the halting problem. Which formula?  You are so incredibly vague you can't even say that.  Do you mean my logical argument against Philip's nonsense or do you mean the proof of the halting problem.  Please provide a formal logical argument if you want to disprove something (in the strong math sense of the term)
So again, I've asserted a few things about math which have been proved (in the strong math sense not the weak lumen sense) and you just asserted something about every person on earth (and possibly in the universe).  Math is arguably a smaller field than the sum of human behavior.   So again aren't you, by your own logic the more egotistical of the two of us?  Just sayin'

The computer halting problem is simply crap from the past. It's not difficult at all to write a program to load another program and step through it calculating the results of any operation before it does the operation. I don't know why you insist on believing this to be an impossible task or why you consider this important.

It's TOTALLY possible today. It may have had some value when a computer was a box of mechanical levers, but I see no problem today where computer programs are run under supervisory control programs or even operating systems.  Again you fail to see it.

Just to be precise.


The term was "egocentric" and is why you failed to comment on the fact that you view everything from yourself outward and never see a larger view.

Do you need to know the mechanism to know if something can work?  The real answer is YES, or you wouldn't need to ask the question.

You could open at least one eye and think for yourself and in the end, well, you would probably still fail.

Don't even get on me about math, I have done so much math over the years that it became possible to calculate trig functions in my head and then it developed to simply logical guess based on years of calculation.

I now call it baseball engineering along the same line as an outfielder running to catch a ball. Does the outfielder need to calculate the angle and speed of the ball with a parabolic curve to know where it will fall?

Of course not, he simply knows about where it will fall from years of experience.

From all this I know exactly where this "sarkeizen spiel" would fall if it were on my desk. ( just to be precise)

[sarkeizen]

The computer halting problem is simply crap from the past. It's not difficult at all to write a program to load another program and step through it calculating the results of any operation before it does the operation.

I notice that you haven't answered my question about if your program recognizes that a loop exists and then calls code to determine if the loop ends or not.  Perhaps you see how it traps you?

What you're describing (very imprecisely) appears to be interpreting or emulating.  Which you appeared to understand from your earlier posting that it could not solve the halting problem.  Do you concede that point or do you think an application which does not terminate on an interpreter or emulator would terminate on it's own?

I don't know why you insist on believing this to be an impossible task

So far you haven't shown a way to accomplish it.  Also the math says it can't be done but hey why not make Computer Science history right here and now?

or why you consider this important.

Really? It's only been explained at least a dozen times.  Once you understand that you can prove that no algorithm exists to accomplish a task then you also have to concede that you can tell if something will work or not without knowing some arbitrary level of detail on it's mechanism.  Once you concede that then we've dismissed with your so-far only stated objection to why my argument for Philip's nonsense.

It's TOTALLY possible today. It may have had some value when a computer was a box of mechanical levers, but I see no problem today where computer programs are run under supervisory control programs or even operating systems.

So you're saying that a hypervisor or operating system can determine if any program will terminate or not.   Can you give me an example of how it does this?  A hypervisor is really no different than an emulator which you appeared to agree couldn't solve the halting problem - which is why you switched to your ANALYZER argument.

The term was "egocentric" and is why you failed to comment on the fact that you view everything from yourself outward and never see a larger view.

I don't know what you mean (because you're being imprecise) by "view everything from yourself outward" or "never see a larger view" at least with respect to finding a solution to the halting problem.  If you mean you can write programs to solve a DIFFERENT problem other than the halting problem but one which might equal or greater value to someone. Well duh!  That's no different than saying that video games don't solve the halting problem.  Many people consider them more valuable than solving the halting problem.   However that is, of course not the question I asked nor the argument I'm asserting.

Do you need to know the mechanism to know if something can work?  The real answer is YES, or you wouldn't need to ask the question.

So if someone gave you a machine and said that it:

i) always outputs an integer
ii) always accepts as input any algebraic equation with one unknown
iii) always returns the correct result

Do you think you could type in "X * 2 = 3" and it would give you a correct integer value for X?  If not then haven't you just deterministically and correctly stated that the machine would not work - that is it would not function the way it was defined - even though you have no idea at all what is inside?  Or do you need to know what is inside to know that there is no integer that satisfies X for X * 2 = 3?

You could open at least one eye and think for yourself and in the end, well, you would probably still fail.

So far, all you've done is argue from anonymous authority  That is you cry and whine that something doesn't work but you still can't give a real argument.

Don't even get on me about math, I have done so much math over the years that it became possible to calculate trig functions in my head and then it developed to simply logical guess based on years of calculation.

So?  Ever think of using a calculator?  Calculation is part of math but math is so much more than calculation.

I now call it baseball engineering along the same line as an outfielder running to catch a ball. Does the outfielder need to calculate the angle and speed of the ball with a parabolic curve to know where it will fall?

Of course not, he simply knows about where it will fall from years of experience.

What does this have to do with solving the halting problem correctly and deterministically for any program?  If someone is learning through experience then their "output" is not deterministic (if it was, they couldn't learn).

[lumen]

I notice that you haven't answered my question about if your program recognizes that a loop exists and then calls code to determine if the loop ends or not.  Perhaps you see how it traps you?

What you're describing (very imprecisely) appears to be interpreting or emulating.  Which you appeared to understand from your earlier posting that it could not solve the halting problem.  Do you concede that point or do you think an application which does not terminate on an interpreter or emulator would terminate on it's own?So far you haven't shown a way to accomplish it.  Also the math says it can't be done but hey why not make Computer Science history right here and now?Really? It's only been explained at least a dozen times.  Once you understand that you can prove that no algorithm exists to accomplish a task then you also have to concede that you can tell if something will work or not without knowing some arbitrary level of detail on it's mechanism.  Once you concede that then we've dismissed with your so-far only stated objection to why my argument for Philip's nonsense.So you're saying that a hypervisor or operating system can determine if any program will terminate or not.   Can you give me an example of how it does this?  A hypervisor is really no different than an emulator which you appeared to agree couldn't solve the halting problem - which is why you switched to your ANALYZER argument.I don't know what you mean (because you're being imprecise) by "view everything from yourself outward" or "never see a larger view" at least with respect to finding a solution to the halting problem.  If you mean you can write programs to solve a DIFFERENT problem other than the halting problem but one which might equal or greater value to someone. Well duh!  That's no different than saying that video games don't solve the halting problem.  Many people consider them more valuable than solving the halting problem.   However that is, of course not the question I asked nor the argument I'm asserting.
So if someone gave you a machine and said that it:

i) always outputs an integer
ii) always accepts as input any algebraic equation with one unknown
iii) always returns the correct result

Do you think you could type in "X * 2 = 3" and it would give you a correct integer value for X?  If not then haven't you just deterministically and correctly stated that the machine would not work - that is it would not function the way it was defined - even though you have no idea at all what is inside?  Or do you need to know what is inside to know that there is no integer that satisfies X for X * 2 = 3?So far, all you've done is argue from anonymous authority  That is you cry and whine that something doesn't work but you still can't give a real argument.So?  Ever think of using a calculator?  Calculation is part of math but math is so much more than calculation.What does this have to do with solving the halting problem correctly and deterministically for any program?  If someone is learning through experience then their "output" is not deterministic (if it was, they couldn't learn).

And you post another predictable fail.

I see from your remark that computer language is something foreign to you. So after you do about 8 years of assembly language programming on three different CPU's, you just come right back here and set me straight, OK

As far as the math, wow..... you can dictate conditions and make a formula that can't work because of them. Just too much.

It's so basic, I feel sorry for you. I didn't know

[sarkeizen]

I notice yet again...that you haven't answered my question concerning your ANALYZER program:  Does it recognize that a loop exists in the code it's analyzing and then call a function (or execute other code) to determine if the loop ends or not?  Are you going to answer this?  Or do you concede the point that you can't write a program which solves the halting problem?

I see from your remark that computer language is something foreign to you. So after you do about 8 years of assembly language programming on three different CPU's, you just come right back here and set me straight, OK

Well that was easy.  I've done assembly language programming since I was 14.  At various points in time I've written code for: 65/68xx, 68xxx, x86 and ARM.  Sorry to disappoint.

As far as the math, wow..... you can dictate conditions and make a formula that can't work because of them.

Then you concede the point that you don't need to know the mechanism of a device to determine that it does not work.  I didn't tell you how the machine worked but somehow you knew that it "can't work".  Right there  You said it. You lose!

Quick!  Make up a vague and contradictory statement about the "real world".  That should make you feel better.

[lumen]

I notice yet again...that you haven't answered my question concerning your ANALYZER program:  Does it recognize that a loop exists in the code it's analyzing and then call a function (or execute other code) to determine if the loop ends or not?  Are you going to answer this?  Or do you concede the point that you can't write a program which solves the halting problem?
Well that was easy.  I've done assembly language programming since I was 14.  At various points in time I've written code for: 65/68xx, 68xxx, x86 and ARM.  Sorry to disappoint.
Then you concede the point that you don't need to know the mechanism of a device to determine that it does not work.  I didn't tell you how the machine worked but somehow you knew that it "can't work".  Right there  You said it. You lose!

Quick!  Make up a vague and contradictory statement about the "real world".  That should make you feel better.

So you have done some programming, and yet you tell me you cannot write code for a processor that could examine an arbitrary program and map all the calls and jump points, then run each instruction by first examining the registers and knowing the results, then proceed to the next instruction, in such a manner that all calls jumps and values and interrupts and return points are known before execution, and still believe that there is no way to do this?

You got to be kidding me, I can think of at least 3 ways and they would all work and I know of some utilities for micro processor programming that already have this function. So you say you have been doing this since you were 14 and now your what 15?

WWW.CNCZEUS.COM

That's a free spare time program I wrote a few years ago.

Yea, whatever you say.
I wonder if you can mathematically calculate what hand your pill is in today?

Oh gee I didn't answer the kindergarten math question, that must mean I admit to something.
What an ass. You have convinced yourself you live in a world of can't do, and that's why you are where you are today. (this will be good)

I know for sure you must be divorced.