V. N., What is inhuman to me, is to claim that the halting problem is no problem on such a basis: that the statement "Turing machine X does not halt" only is true of Turing machines that are *provably* non-halting. And this is the view we are forced into if we abandon the reality of the uncomputable.
A. D. On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "No nonsense, just finite sense. What is this with verification that a >> machine doesn't halt? One can't do it, so what is the problem?" >> >> The idea would be (if Mike is really willing to go that far): "It >> makes sense to say that a given Turing machine DOES halt; I know what >> that means. But to say that one DOESN'T halt? How can I make sense of >> that? Either a given machine has halted, or it has not halted yet. But >> to say that it never halts requires infinity, a nonsensical concept." >> >> An AI that only understood computable concepts would agree with the >> above. What I am saying is that such a view is... inhuman. >> > > It wasn't worded correctly, there are many machines that you can prove > don't halt, but also others for which you can't prove that. Why would > that be inhuman to not be able to do impossible? > > -- > Vladimir Nesov > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
