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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
