If science is so great, how come you haven't proven that god doesn't exist?

File: 786 KB, 1155x1248, 1310082717617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:09:43 2011 No.3480280 [Reply] [Original]

If science is so great, how come you haven't proven that god doesn't exist?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:10:43 2011 No.3480285 0/10

>>	HORRYSHET Sun Jul 31 00:12:43 2011 No.3480302 File: 28 KB, 327x344, 1310772857694.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Lurk more my little faggot. Maybe one day you'll be a true troll. Lol just kidding faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:16:43 2011 No.3480321 >>3480302 >>3480285 >Ask reasonable question about one of sciences failures. >Only replies say op is trolling and dont address the question in anyway. You guys are just trolling yourselves with your flawed beliefs.

>>	Sun Jul 31 00:20:43 2011 No.3480334 >>3480321 >Reasonable question theres your problem

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:20:43 2011 No.3480342 File: 24 KB, 639x337, im a ghost.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] not a single fuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:21:43 2011 No.3480348 >>3480321 ur a faget

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:23:50 2011 No.3480356 mfw I have no face

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:26:43 2011 No.3480380 Victor Stegnor literally wrote a book on how science has proved god doesn't exist

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:31:43 2011 No.3480407
File: 2 KB, 123x120, 1300164275974.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3480380
>implying writing a book makes it true and proves it wrong

Is this not the same reason atheist fags get made over religion fags claiming the bible said so and it must be true?

herpderp

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:33:43 2011 No.3480416 >>3480407 I'm just saying, he asked why science hasn't proven it wrong, and it has also russel's teapot /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:34:43 2011 No.3480423 File: 422 KB, 1410x960, 1280042649850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3480407 Facts Vs Unfalsifiable hypotheses

Rickylo Sun Jul 31 01:26:43 2011 No.3480619
File: 43 KB, 256x256, 1302227442638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Ah, but science has dis proven the existence of a christian/ Jewish god. For example, in your 3000 year-old book you all still follow,for example,(most common example) there is no mention of dinosaurs, while science has unearthed tons of proof about the subject.

>>	Eponymous Sun Jul 31 01:32:43 2011 No.3480637 >>3480619 not that I am in any way agreeing with the OP's idiocy, but exclusion != proof

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:36:43 2011 No.3480646 Thanks to genetics we know that humanity did not descend from a genetic bottleneck of two humans. Therefore judaism's creation story, and with it christianity and islam, are clear bunk.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:37:43 2011 No.3480649
File: 285 KB, 1024x768, 1239080425849.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3480280
The same reason we haven't disproved the existence of unicorns. You cannot expect someone to prove a negative.

A better question is..

If religion is so great, how come you haven't proven that god does exist?

Also, mega-sage for bad troll.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:46:43 2011 No.3480688 because we have. you christfags just wont except it. lolimfeedingthetrolls.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:47:43 2011 No.3480690 >>3480619 >Believing in dinosaurs I bet you believe in evolution as well

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:48:49 2011 No.3480694 >>3480356 >mfw you have no face >yfw neither do i.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:52:50 2011 No.3480712 File: 358 KB, 1024x768, mfwnoface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3480694 mfw neither of us have faces

>>	Rickylo Sun Jul 31 02:07:43 2011 No.3480775 >>3480690 >evolution is fact, if your a creationist your iq is less than 60

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:26:43 2011 No.3480858

Proven god doesn't exist is an entirely different topic than proven all current (large) religions are incorrect. We have proven that all religions to date are incorrect, it is theoretically impossible to say that there is no creator of everything. We can only narrow the chances to be smaller and smaller.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:33:43 2011 No.3480887

I know it's troll-bait, but for the curious heres why:
The very nature of the god claim makes it so you cannot "unprove" it.

the same way science can't "unprove" a invisable, magicial teapot halfway between the moon and earth or the flying spegette monster etc etc.
It's more of a logic problem really. The best science can do is show how "likely or unlikely" the claim of god is.

The christian claim of god has been shown by science to be very, very unlikely.

>>	Blackman Sun Jul 31 02:33:43 2011 No.3480890 Look here pinhead, if we evolved from monkeys, there wouldn't be any monkeys left on Earth. You can't explain that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:36:43 2011 No.3480905 File: 7 KB, 376x270, 1303798264063.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3480890

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:38:43 2011 No.3480920 File: 2.11 MB, 382x369, 1307496861580.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3480890

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:40:43 2011 No.3480939 >>3480920 that gif is amazing. thank you for that. sage being that this post is irrelephant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:41:43 2011 No.3480943 I maintain that the theory of evolution is disproved by the presence of pinhead theists on this board go ahead, prove me wrong

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:41:43 2011 No.3480948 If god is incomprehensible, then any way that god could be defined is wrong, so nothing called god exists.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:47:43 2011 No.3480982

>>3480943
Because theists aren't any less likely to reproduce and have no reason not to.
>>3480948
That argument is very flawed. Why is it necessary to explain something in detail to know if it exists. ex. gravity. He didn't know why it works but he realized it was there and found out the rest later.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:53:43 2011 No.3481007 >>3480982 Who said anything about explaining it in detail? This is an issue of comprehensibility not clarity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:56:43 2011 No.3481024 We have proved God doesn't exist, although the proof is more the realm of philosophy than science. The real question is why haven't you christfags been able to understand the proof yet?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:03:43 2011 No.3481058

>>3481007
Earth is flat. I can't comprehend any other possible solution. There is no other solution.

Ever thought that maybe you, and all humans, don't have high enough intelligence to be able to comprehend it.
By the way, I'm athiest, but I still feel like your argument is flawed and will give christfags more of a reason to think their right if they can find the flaws.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:09:43 2011 No.3481090

>>3481058
That's the point, If I don't have the ability to comprehend something I cannot attach the concept to a representation such that I can meaningfully call it anything.

I didn't say: God doesn't exist.
I said: Nothing called god exists.
Pay attention.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:16:43 2011 No.3481116 >>3481024 Wheres the proof.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:21:43 2011 No.3481141 >>3481116 Is that a serious question? Read this >>3480858 Now tell me if you still want an answer. You can always argue that something with a 10^-billion% chance thing can happen, but that's no reason to believe it will

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:37:43 2011 No.3481247 >>3481141 The concept of everything seems like an ontological glitch to me. Like trying to put a box inside of itself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:40:43 2011 No.3481258 >>3480649 Why does one duck have a troll head on its ass

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:43:43 2011 No.3481272 >>3481258 No the question is ¿why don't more troll ducks have thier head in thier ass

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:47:43 2011 No.3481288 >>3481116 It is called positivism. It is the philosophy followed by most scientists. Go look it up. Read some Karl Popper. Shit bricks when you become and atheist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:51:43 2011 No.3481307 >>3481247 Does throwing god into this equation make it make more sense to you? Why would god be there. Why did god always exist. Why doesn't god need a creator. Why did god create humans? Do you want me to go on?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:55:43 2011 No.3481324 >>3481288 Its bullshit. Science cannot prove mathematical concepts.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:10:43 2011 No.3481388

>>3481307
No, it doesn't make more sense to me. God is a concept which people try to associate with the concept of everything. Whether god includes everything, everything includes god, or some strange mishmash thereof, it's still an ontological glitch, meaningless metaphysical babble.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:11:43 2011 No.3481394 >>3481324 If you want to get dirty about it, math can't prove mathematical concepts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:12:43 2011 No.3481398 >>3481388 what is the problem

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:13:43 2011 No.3481405 >>3481394 self evident axioms. No one claimed it could nor tries as its self evident.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:15:43 2011 No.3481415

>>3481388
I'm very confused at what your trying to say. You can't comprehend god or no god? Or are you trying to say you don't understand the concept of everything with or without god? Or are you just saying you don't understand how everything can be created from nothing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:16:43 2011 No.3481420 >>3481405 So your telling me that you don't believe in math or science? Or are you saying that nothing can ever be proven?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:16:43 2011 No.3481422 >>3481405 As self evident as the axiom of choice am I right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:17:43 2011 No.3481426 >>3481415 Yes.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:18:43 2011 No.3481429

>>3481324
Well, the positivist response would be that the theorems of mathematics are simply the consequence of using symbols, or language, in a consistent way. If we both agree on what "whole" and "part" mean, then we must also agree with the mathematical axiom that the whole is greater than its part.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:18:43 2011 No.3481434 >>3481420 Of course I believe in math. key word believe. You cant prove self evidence. Its just self evident.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:20:43 2011 No.3481440 >>3481429 What does mereology have to do with it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:21:43 2011 No.3481450 >>3481429 philosophy>math>science whats your point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:22:43 2011 No.3481453 >>3481450 whatever

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:32:43 2011 No.3481497 File: 7 KB, 125x125, 1122334456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3481453 for you

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:34:43 2011 No.3481505

>>3481434
So are you saying that you believe in math but you can't be 100% sure its right?
If so... I said this before.
>>You can always argue that something with a 10^-billion% chance thing can happen
Everything takes some sort of "believing" in that sense. But when the chance is that small it is insignificant in my opinion.

Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk Sun Jul 31 04:36:43 2011 No.3481513

>>3481450
Science = Math = High-Tier Philosophy

The problem with philosophy is that too many people get away with being "philosophers" even when there is hard evidence on the subject. Philosophy should focus on extrapolating from evidence, not just making shit up as you go.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:37:43 2011 No.3481517 >>3481440 It was just an example of the consistent use of symbols leading to mathematical knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:40:43 2011 No.3481534 >>3481517 blah bleh blah godel blah bhal baal blah

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:50:43 2011 No.3481576

>>3481534
Ok, so Godel inconsistency theorem does prove that no single set of symbols used consistently can provide a complete system which explains all mathematical knowledge, at least not a system that is logically consistent. To me that just means that we might need more than one set of symbols that we apply selectively to different problems. Kind of like the fact that relativity and quantum theory are inconsistent, but as long as we only apply relativity to situations involving large amounts of energy, and quantum theory to situations involving small amounts, we are fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:55:43 2011 No.3481599 >>3481576 If you get 2 sets of symbols and partition problems between them, I can invent a third question which neither can answer. If you add a third, I can invent a new question which is unanswerable but is true nonetheless. And so on.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:57:43 2011 No.3481604 >>3481513 No this is a scale of importance. Science and mathematics are branches of philosophy. Math is the purer from so its greater.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:57:43 2011 No.3481605 >>3481599 Maybe, I still don't understand Godel as well as I should. What I have read of him, he clearly is not giving up on axiomatic mathematics. Your interpretation of him makes me think that he would have to, but he doesn't

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:57:43 2011 No.3481606 We're not fine. More than one isn't even the beginning. No finite axiomatizable system is both consistent and complete. Enjoy. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0708/0708.1362v2.pdf

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:59:43 2011 No.3481615

>>3481605
Being incomplete is not a good reason to give up on it. It can still answer lots and lots of question.

Related: The Halting Problem. It is impossible to determine if a given program (on a given input) will halt. This has /drastic/ consequences for optimizing compilers. Do they give up? No. They use heurestics - rules that identify some subset of cases of halting, but not all cases. It works out well enough in practice. /end metaphor

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:59:43 2011 No.3481616

>>3481576
I'm lost and never heard of this before so can you explain this to me. Your telling me "+" isn't true because we can't prove it? I dropped 3 apples on the ground. Then I dropped 2 apples on the ground. I counted 5 apples on the ground. 3+2=5. Isn't that proving that "+" exists? I am very confused at the moment.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:03:43 2011 No.3481628

>>3481616
Addition, in the sense of Presburger arithmetic is actually consistently and completely decidable, as is geometry on the real closed field. You can do both without using the natural numbers.

Once you involve the natural numbers you fuck yourself with quantification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier_elimination

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:04:43 2011 No.3481631

>>3481616
It's somewhat related to the liar paradox. Imagine we have a machine that will, in guaranteed finite time, answer all "math" questions with true or false. Call this machine the Oracle.

I ask the machine if the following assertion is true or false. "The oracle will never say this sentence is true."

That's a very bad metaphor. The actual work involves diagonalization, and the wiki page is better at explaining it than I.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:08:43 2011 No.3481645

>>3481615
I have serious issues with the halting problem, as it's one of the first encounters you have in Computer Science.

Of course you can determine whether or not something will halt.

Now whether we can determine whether EVERYTHING will halt is a much bigger question, but it still boils down to three situations:

Something halts.

Something doesn't halt, but continues a loop.

Something produces something else which that has to be examined if it will halt.

The first situations are easily determinable, the last situations is trickier as it requires the understanding of what a program will produce, that is, in the previous two situations the data can take a finite or infinite amount of time or memory which is easy to discern, but for the third scenario, we can still determine whether a program will produce an infinite number of self-propagating programs by simply looking at the end condition.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:08:43 2011 No.3481647 >>3481631 Liar paradox is a product of quantification. Without the ∀ and ∃ operators a language can be consistent.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:10:43 2011 No.3481656 >>3481631 The paradox doesn't really make sense. But are you trying to say that true and false for math questions are different from true and false for non-math questions?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:10:43 2011 No.3481661

>>3481647
Indeed, and also rather uninteresting, as you cannot adequately describe Natural Numbers.

>>3481645

There is no finitely describable algorithm which can determine if another finitely describable algorithm will halt on the domain of all finitely describable algorithms. I suggest you retake the Theory of Computation course and pay attention this time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:12:43 2011 No.3481663 >>3481661 That you find such uninteresting is your problem, not mine.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:13:43 2011 No.3481667

>>3481615
Could we then, by multiplying the number of axiomatic systems, answer more and more questions to the point that the unanswered ones left over are very small in number?
I've always wondered how Godel's theorem applies to physics. It seems like the search for one unified theory of physics is pretty futile, when it could never answer all the questions posed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:15:43 2011 No.3481671 >>3481647 Without those operators we couldn't make any logically complete sentences....

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:15:43 2011 No.3481675

>>3481656
It's a simple proof by contradiction. Suppose that there exists an oracle, a machine which can answer all questions of math true or false in guaranteed finite time. By definition, the internal operatings of this machine are describable by math. It is a math question whether the oracle will respond true or false for a specific proposition.

Ask it the following proposition is true or false:
"The oracle when given this proposition will report false."

Give the oracle the proposition for determining truthfulness. Again note that the proposition could be rephrased in terms of the internal workings of the oracle machine, as that was one of the assumptions of the problem. If it answers true, then it's wrong. If it answers false, then it's wrong. Not answering is unallowed by the premises.

In other words, as soon as you allow self reference, you need to give up completeness. The oracle is unable to analyze itself.

Moreover, the oracle cannot exist, as just demonstrated.

To get proper self reference, it is a sufficient condition that it be able to sufficiently describe Natural Numbers. Any axiomatic system capable of describing real numbers is capable of self reference, and thus prone to this problem. In more technical formulations, it's possible to do the diagnonalization argument.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:15:43 2011 No.3481676 >>3481661 But I never took that coarse in the first place... But as far as I know from computer science, there is such algorithm.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:16:43 2011 No.3481677

>>3481667
>Could we then, by multiplying the number of axiomatic systems, answer more and more questions to the point that the unanswered ones left over are very small in number?
We can always invent more axioms to answer more and more propositions. The number "remaining" will always be a bigger cardinality than the "answered" questions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:17:43 2011 No.3481679 >>3481667 See the paper I linked to here. >>3481606 It may or may not be related to physics, but it is related to languages we can use in attempts to describe physics.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:17:43 2011 No.3481680

>>3481677
Moreover, as an example, the great majority of Real Numbers are not computable. That is, there is no algorithm for a great majority of Real Numbers so that a finitely describable process will "hone in" on that number, getting more accurate the longer you run the algorithm.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:18:43 2011 No.3481683 >>3481676 You have been misled.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:20:43 2011 No.3481689

>>3481676
Well, if P=NP...

But it would violate everything we know about causality and allow us to predict and control the future at a level that many imagine god to operate upon. If the notion of future, or time for that matter, were still meaningful...

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:22:43 2011 No.3481694

>>3481689
P = NP has nothing to do with the halting problem. Congratulations on your ignorance.

The Halting Problem is pretty easily proved not computable. P = NP is an open question in Theory Of Computation. It could go either way. Neither way changes the status of The Halting Problem as being uncomputable.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:23:43 2011 No.3481699

>>3481675

>To get proper self reference, it is a sufficient condition that it be able to sufficiently describe Natural Numbers.

Why? Can you provide an example of some "sufficient natural numbers description" which requires self-reference (cannot be complete and consistent at the same time)?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:23:43 2011 No.3481700

>>3481675
Except by limiting the oracle to true/false question is not logically consistent.

There is such a thing as an oscillatory state, though in mathematics it doesn't exist because it assumes everything is done instantly or concludes.

A computer can readily determine if an operation is existing in a binary state and will forever loop.

The only "contradiction" is that your oracle can only give true or false answers. Therefore your oracle is not capable of describing all of mathematics because you do not give it the power to answer all of mathematics.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:25:43 2011 No.3481707

>>3481675
But the oracle will give the first answer that is correct.
>The oracle when given this proposition will report false.
>this propostion = p
so either
p=false
which is false
or it is a recursive loop.

imagine.
>5=2 this statement is true.
5=2 is false so the statement as a whole is false regardless of it saying its true or not.

so wait what would happen if you asked it...
>x=y
?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:26:43 2011 No.3481710

>>3481700
What? No.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
>That's not right - that's not even wrong.
The basic idea that it's not right, and it's not even wrong, because your sentences lack enough coherence and meaning by which to judge them as right or wrong.

Questions in math are true or false (or currently unknown, or independent of the axiomatic framework in context). There are no other options.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:27:43 2011 No.3481711 >>3481694 Lol, as if there will ever be proof either way. Congratulations on your ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:28:43 2011 No.3481716 >>3481707 >If you gave it x=y That statement contains unbound variables, and would be rejected as ill formed.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:29:43 2011 No.3481718

>>3481710
Except that if those are the only answers mathematics can provide, then of course it's wrong because it's not wholly consistent with paradoxical statements.

Computational theories on the other hand can contain all of mathematics yet still provide answers which do not conclude to "one" answer but do resolve to a finite solution, even if that finite solutions describes an infinite solution.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:30:43 2011 No.3481721

>>3481699
That would be hard for me to describe in the context of 4chan. See the wiki pages, specifically the diagonalization argument. The diagonalization argument needs Natural Numbers. Without that, his proof of the Incompleteness Theorems doesn't work.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:32:43 2011 No.3481725

>>3481694
but you can very easily adjust the program to check for recursive or infinite loops and have them break them itself and tell it to give you some sort of response that their was a recursive loop which means that the statement is neither true nor false. But that proves nothing. You can ask it
"b<b-2". it is a recursive loop just like the above statement.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:32:43 2011 No.3481726

>>3481718
Look dude. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about, and/or you're being an pedantic asshat for the purposes of trolling. I suggest you bother to educate yourself on such matters before taking part in future discussions, and/or to stop trolling /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:33:43 2011 No.3481728 >>3481726 You don't understand that there are solutions in mathematics which are not true or false statements.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:34:43 2011 No.3481730 >>3481725 Again, you seem to think that the Halting Problem is computable. It is not. Shall we start with that, before moving on to the bigger and harder Incompleteness Theorems?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:34:43 2011 No.3481732 >>3481728 there are solutions in mathematics that aren't solutions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:35:43 2011 No.3481733 >>3481716 But "this proposition" is undefined other than its definition of itself. Which is a recursive loop. Is that the point of the paradox because it could be easily stated as what i stated here >>3481725 "b<b-2"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:35:43 2011 No.3481736 I'm guessing 4 people are participating in this conversation, any other guesses?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:35:43 2011 No.3481737

>>3481728
I understand that to problems, they can have solutions that are something either than true or false. Ex:
x = 3-5
Solve for x.
That is not a true or false question.

The oracle in question has been defined as something which takes a well formed math assertion and determines if it is true or false. It has not been defined as an general purpose solution finder. It merely determines the truthity or falseness of a well formed boolean expression.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:36:43 2011 No.3481738 >>3481730 But I still see no reason why it is not computable. That's all I'm trying to figure out right now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:37:43 2011 No.3481739 science demands proof of existence, not proof of non-existence evolution was proved through evidence evolution was not proved because evidence lacked of it not existing

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:38:43 2011 No.3481745

>>3480649
Unicorns really aren't all that far fetched... It's just a fucking horn that distinguishes one from a regular horse.

It's good to see all the Atheists have found a place to congregate in /sci/ with their fellow Atheists.

As I've always said, Atheism is a religion. And a really bad one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:39:43 2011 No.3481748 >>3481730 The argument for a non-determinable halting problem completely is dependent on their being no abstractive algorithm whatsoever. THAT is the problem with any argument for the halting problem.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:40:43 2011 No.3481750 >>3481745 Depends on your definition of a religion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:41:43 2011 No.3481754 >>3481745 So if god is incomprehensible, what distinguishes it from other incomprehensible concepts?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:41:43 2011 No.3481757 >>3481739 Science may require proof of existence, but religion requires proof of non-existence. Typical atheist stoner lazing about, taking the easier of two options.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:42:43 2011 No.3481758 >>3481754 God isn't incomprehensible. Read the Bible herp derp.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:43:43 2011 No.3481761

>>3481748
Here's a good example of what I mean, straight from the wiki article:

>If PHSR recognizes the constructed program X as a partial halting solver, that means that P, the only input for which X produces a result, halts. If PHSR fails to recognize X, then it must be because P does not halt. Therefore H can decide whether an arbitrary program P halts; it solves the halting problem. Since this is impossible, the program PHSR could not have been a partial halting solver recognizer as claimed. Therefore, no program can be a complete partial halting solver recognizer.
>Therefore, no program can be a complete partial halting solver recognizer.
What the fuck magic am I doing then if I look at a source code which says hello world and I say it stops?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:44:43 2011 No.3481762 >>3481758 You're suggesting you comprehend it better than I do?

>>	Brofessor G (Phone) Sun Jul 31 05:44:43 2011 No.3481763 And to think, I got banned for making a "what mental illness does /sci/ think this guy has" post, while shit like this that's expressly forbidden in the rules slides on by. What is this faggotry?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:45:43 2011 No.3481764 >>3481762 Yes. I'm claiming your atheist brain is really, really dumb.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:45:43 2011 No.3481765

>>3481748
But if all the statements are entered correctly than this wouldn't happen. Just throwing a incomplete statement at it doesn't mean the program isn't possible, it just means the statement isn't possible. If I left a blank line it can't answer true or false so it should have a correction for that. It's just a bad input then not a impossible program.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:45:43 2011 No.3481769 >>3481764 I'm not an atheist but you don't seem to comprehend that...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:47:43 2011 No.3481775 >>3481769 OK, then your theist brain is really, really dumb. Perhaps dumber than that of an atheist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:48:43 2011 No.3481780 >>3481775 ooh, another failure of classification, try again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:48:43 2011 No.3481781 >>3481764 Just because one atheist is dumb doesn't mean all of them are. Let me hear your reasoning and I will crush it in seconds.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:50:43 2011 No.3481788 >>3481781 he's just attempting to fuck with us, just like I'm royally fucking with him

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:50:43 2011 No.3481792 >>3481781 Atheists are dumb because their brains are dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:52:43 2011 No.3481800 File: 187 KB, 640x421, starving-african-children-aids[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >how come you haven't proven that god doesn't exist but it has been proven

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:56:43 2011 No.3481817 ITT: Atheist believe god is unfalsifiable.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:56:43 2011 No.3481818

>>3481757
Proving something takes more work than not proving it. The scientific method takes more hard work than pretending there is god.

In a world like we have today, it's not exactly hard to understand why the scientific method works better than the religious method. We have the internet made through science, the computer made through science, and the medicines we consume for health made through science.

The religious method promotes unneeded sacrifice, torture, and sadness. Sure it inspires people to do good, but the people should recognize they are doing good of their own free will and not to the benefit of something that does not exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:57:43 2011 No.3481825 >>3481818 this nigga got trolled

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:58:43 2011 No.3481828

>>3481733
Apparently we're going to need to get a bit more formal.

An formal alphabet is a finite set of (distinguishable) symbols.

A language is a set of strings over a particular alphabet.

A language is called Turing recognizable if there exists some Turing machine so that the Turing machine will halt (in finite time) on every string in the language.

A language is called Turing decidable if there exists some Turing machine so that the Turing machine will halt on every string over the alphabet, and the machine will accept all and only those strings in the language.

A Turing machine can be encoded as a Natural Number (and decoded back). Moreover, there exists an encoding for any Turing machine and its input. Ex: there exists a Turing machine A which can read an encoding of any Turing machine B and any input X, and can simulate (exactly) the Turing machine B on input X, halting iff machine B would halt on X, and accepting iff machine would accept on X.

A decision problem is a question which has a yes or no answer, depending on values of some inputs. Equivalently, one can treat a decision problem as a language over a particular alphabet - all and only "yes" strings are in the language. A decision problem is called (Turing) decidable if there exists some Turing machine which decides the language.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:59:43 2011 No.3481833

>>3481828
Let us suppose that there exists a Turing machine H which takes input of an encoded Turing machine M and any input X, so that H will accept iff M would halt on X, and reject otherwise. (Further let it halt with reject on malformed input.) Thus, H halts on all input.

Let's define a new machine, G, so that G takes input X. G is defined to simulate H on (X, X). G will then enter a simple endless loop if H returns accept, and G will return accept if H returns reject. (If X is a malformed description of a Turing machine, then G rejects.)

What happens when we call G on the encoding of G?

Possibility 1- H(G, G) returns accept. Then G will endlessly loop. Thus G on the encoding of G endlessly loops. However, H(G, G) returned accept, which means that G halts on input G. Thus contradiction.

Possilibity 2- H(G, G) returns reject. Then G will halt. Thus G on the encoding of G halts. However, H(G, G) returned reject, which means that G on G does not halt. Thus contradiction.

Thus the halting problem is not decidable.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:00:43 2011 No.3481836

>>3481817
>ITT: Atheist believe god is unfalsifiable.
Well depends what you mean by god. Because all major religions gods have already been proven false, including the christian god. But it is impossible to say there is no creator. You can just narrow it down to a slim chance.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:01:43 2011 No.3481838

>>3481825
It's hard to know what trolling is anymore, because religion in today's world is incredibly flawed to the scientific method. I figure that one day religious folk would claim they only believed in god to see how far people would go for something that does not exist.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:04:43 2011 No.3481845

>>3481761
>What the fuck magic am I doing then if I look at a source code which says hello world and I say it stops?
It says that no finitely describable algorithm A can determine if an finitely describable algorithm B would halt, for all algorithms B.

It says nothing about a finitely describable algorithm A which can determine if an finitely describable algorithm B would halt, for a bunch (but not all) algorithms B.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:08:43 2011 No.3481854

>>3481833
I understand what your saying better now, but don't completely understand. That formal approach helped a lot. I still don't understand why it is assumed that it has the possibility to return either answer though. If you go through the code it still seems to be a recursive loop to me. You don't need to sit here and try to explain it to me if you don't want. I can always try and read up on it myself. Thanks either way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:09:43 2011 No.3481856 >>3481836 >Because all major religions gods have already been proven false, including the christian god. Pure unadulterated bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:10:43 2011 No.3481862 >>3481856 What god are you saying hasn't been proven false?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:11:43 2011 No.3481865

>>3481854
It takes you a while to wrap your head around it. At least it did for me, and still doesn't. It's never quite intuitive.

The key is to realize that it only says that you cannot get a finitely describable algorithm which determines if a machine halts for all machines. One which correctly answers "yes" for 90% of the actual halting machines, and "unknown" for the rest is not a violation. Optimizing compilers do this all the time.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:12:43 2011 No.3481871

>>3481854
It's a simple proof by cases. I don't know what H on (<G>, <G>) is going to do, but I can prove that it won't be "accept" and it won't be "reject" using proofs by contradiction. Thus H will not halt on (<G>, <G>), but that is a contradiction of the definition of H which says that H halts on all input.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:13:43 2011 No.3481874 >>3481862 The Jesus god reals.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:13:43 2011 No.3481876 >>3481862 >What god You talk as if there are different ones.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:13:43 2011 No.3481877 >>3481865 Thanks I'm gonna read some more on this tomorrow. Much appreciated.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:17:43 2011 No.3481888

>>3481833
>>3481828
Your arguments and addition of multiple machine deliberately obfuscates things to be meaningless.

If there's some language, there are three possibilities to it's programs:

End

Loop

Create another program.

The actual arguments for the halting problem are dependent on third outcome being some magical outcome outside of the scope of abstraction. This is EXACTLY what it's stating, that there is something beyond the scope of abstraction.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:18:43 2011 No.3481890

Continuing on with a question else-thread, it was asked why are Natural Numbers so important to the Incompleteness Theorem proofs? Well, basically one of the proofs uses the fact that the Halting Problem is not computable, and the proof the Halting Problem needs to be able to encode a Turing machine to give it to another Turing machine. Turing machines be arbitrarily big, and thus you need an infinite set for the encoding. Natural Numbers is that set. Natural Numbers is the smallest infinite set.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:20:43 2011 No.3481894

>>3481888
You're being confused. I apologize for the ambiguity in the words. I used the standard definitions, but they're somewhat ambiguous.

A language in this context is not a programming language. They are entirely separate things. In the above proof, "a language" is merely a set of strings over some alphabet, nothing more. It's not like "C++", or "Java".

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:22:43 2011 No.3481899 >>3481890 It all goes back to self reference. As soon as you have Natural Numbers, you can have Turing machines simulate other Turing machines.

>>	Dynasticum !hkEGQsV0Xg Sun Jul 31 06:24:43 2011 No.3481903 >>3480280 You'll never be able to prove the existence of an all powerful being.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:24:43 2011 No.3481906

>>3481894
The problem is trying to bring in natural numbers and shit doesn't explain the halting problem. As much as "reducing" a problem is favorable to mathematicians, in computational math you don't unless things need to be more defined.

Every explanation on wikipedia and you guys have put forth doesn't actually deal with any sort of programs in the sense of logic people can actually understand. Use "real" words. Use "real" computers. Don't sit there and say "well it's beyond your scope if you don't want to read 1,000 page book one why the set of natural numbers is equivalent to all possible programs"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:25:43 2011 No.3481907 >>3481903 >You'll never be able to prove existence Typical atheist cop out

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:26:43 2011 No.3481911

>>3481906
Ok.

Step 1 - this all assumes infinite memory. Perhaps that's your holdup. Turing machines have an arbitrarily long tape. Real machines do not. In that sense, real machines are just DFAs, very very big DFAs, but DFAs nonetheless. However, we actually programming on computers find the infinite memory thing to be a far more useful model than the really-big DFAs.

So, you want it in English? Let me try, one sec.

>>	Dynasticum !hkEGQsV0Xg Sun Jul 31 06:27:43 2011 No.3481912 >>3481907 >Believes in whatever being what him is told. So when are you going to ride unicorns?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:28:43 2011 No.3481920 >>3481911 Fuck off with tapes and single-bit processing machines. I know how to think of infinite ram. I know how to think of processors. I know how to think in fucking SICP.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:29:43 2011 No.3481922

>>3481874
Troll
>>3481876
They refer to the same god so to say, but they believe different things about him.
Well first thing proving him false is the omnipotent saying. I'm sure you heard it.
Second, Creating free will is like programing a computer to do something that it isn't told to do.
Third, many things in the bible make no sense, or contradict each other. Created in 5 days. But time doesn't exist for god. why did it take him 5 days?
The bible says about the flood and Noah's arc. How did he fit every animal, insect, well basically every lifeforms on this boat? They can't evolve, so he needs every species of every type of animal. He needs things that can only survive in certain habitats.
Earth is 5000 years old. If you believe this you'll believe anything the church tells you with no evidence.
Why wouldn't he just send humans straight to heaven?
What about the people who die before they ever hear anything about jesus or god?
What about the infants that die without a chance at being christian?
If he is all knowing, he already knows what the human he created will do, so there is no reason for him to put them on earth, just send them straight to heaven or hell.
If he is all powerful why doesn't he get rid of satan and hell?

I can keep going.. but in the meantime. explain why everything i have said is wrong

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:30:43 2011 No.3481924 >>3481912 I stopped riding unicorns years ago.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:31:43 2011 No.3481925
File: 46 KB, 500x341, 1305572381709.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Hey OP!
Prove that there isn't an invisible Dragon in my garage!
My neighbor also has one in his garage and week ago he said he knows at least 100 other people with dragons in thier garages.

crazy isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:32:43 2011 No.3481929 >>3481925 First prove you exist.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:37:43 2011 No.3481941

Let's suppose I'm on a particular Linux distro.

Let's suppose that I have written a program in the programming language C, which I have called H. H reads from stdin. It reads characters from stdin. It first reads in a demarked integer, N. It then reads in N characters from stdin, and tries to compile that program as a C program. Call this program X. If the compilation fails, then H return a non-zero exit code (aka failure). H then reads the rest of the characters from stdin, going until it hits EOF. Call this input Y. Let's suppose that I then wrote H to simulate the input program X, and give it the input Y, and that as part of this simulation, it would ascertain whether X on Y would halt, or loop endlessly. If the simulation ends, then H returns exit code 0 (success). If H detects that the simulation will run forever, then H returns a non-zero exit code (failure).

With me so far?

PS: stupid post length limit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:37:43 2011 No.3481945 File: 109 KB, 244x212, 1305467520282.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3481929 that's the best you got? do it first

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:38:43 2011 No.3481946

>>3481941
>>3481920
Let's suppose I wrote another program G in the C programming language. G reads characters from stdin until it hits EOF. Call that input X. G then calls H, passing to the stdin of H first the number of characters of X, then it passes X twice to H. If H returns 0 (success), then G enters a simple endless loop, ex: "for (;;);". If H returns non-zero (aka failure), then G returns 0.

The question is what happens when I call G, and pass the C code of G as input? G will pass the following to H - (the number of characters in the source code of G, the C source code of G, the C source code of G). H will then start its simulation of G running with input of the C source code of G. H will return 0 if the simulation halts, and H will return non-zero if it detects that the simulation will run without end.

If H returns 0, then by supposition the simulation of G on G will end, but in that case G has been programmed to enter an endless loop, so H cannot return 0.

If H returns non-zero, then by supposition the simulation of G on G was detected to be without end, and H will return non-zero, and then G will return 0, but we just said that G wouldn't return, so H cannot return non-zero.

Thus H cannot return.

However, that contradicts the supposition that H will always return.

Thus the Halting Problem is undecidable.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:39:43 2011 No.3481949

>>3481922
Why is jesus' sacrifice mean anything if he was just resurrected instantly?
Why does god need worship of people?
Why does god need statues in churches of jesus?
Why does god need you to worship him at a church?
Why does god need you to confess sins to a specific person? Why can't you just confess them on your own?
Where is heaven located?
Where is hell located?
What reason does satan have to try to get people to hell?
How come only 1 of the 3 religions believing in the same god get to go to heaven?
Why did god create an entire universe for only one tiny planet to have humans?
How do humans know of god before jesus or muhhomad said he existed?
Why is jesus jewish?
What happened to the people that weren't christian before christianity existed?
Why don't animals have souls?
If all god's creations are equal why is it bad to torture animals but not bad to throw a rock at the ground?
Why did god create humanity just to like him from a distance?
Why doesn't god just come down to earth so everyone will believe in him? (oh well he wants people to believe without knowing) well then why did he send jesus?
Why did god have the billions of years happen before his first creation with a soul to exist?
Why did god choose one random point in time to create stuff?
If gods omnipotent there is no reason for him to create humans.
Shall i keep going?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:42:43 2011 No.3481959 >>3481946 But couldn't you just throw a random thing into the input like x=y? it will have no answer. will this have the same result?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:42:43 2011 No.3481960 >135 posts and 11 image replies omitted, /sci/ is getting worse.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:44:43 2011 No.3481976

>>3481922
All nonsensical. Youre applying limited logic to philosophy.
Omnipotence/omniscience is easily conceivable.
Take the square root of 4. What did the outcome yield. Plus or minus 2.
The world could have very well been created in 5 days with an appearance of age or many other interpretations of that. The bible is metaphorical as well.
If i had the resources i could contrive a method of fitting every animal on a arc. Or... you could be misinterpreting it. Read it in its original language. Its much more ambiguous.
5000 years. As I said, appearance of age is possible.
Why would he. Whats the point of that.
What about them
I see you dont understand what a christian is
Implying time is linear and deterministic.
why would he.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:45:43 2011 No.3481981

>>3481959
I don't know what you mean. Please be more clear.

If you try to give the input "x=y" to H, it will fail as it did not start with a properly demarked bignum.

If you try to give the input "x=y" to G, then it will fail because that's not valid C source code translation unit for a program of a single translation unit.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:47:43 2011 No.3481987

>>3481941
>>3481946
First off, H can't have as an input part of it's computation, that's blatant assbackwardsness.

If you mean more:
H(N, code)
a = codefaras(X)
if (1 == doesnotcompile(a))
__return FAIL
else H( codeafter(N)

I can't even continue because your first machine is illogical. How can you have the function H be both a attempt-to-compile AND a compiler for it's inputs, except not?

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:47:43 2011 No.3481990

>>3481960
If you look through, I've presented two different proofs that the Halting Problem is undecidable. (Ok, only 1, as they're the same proof rephrased.)

>>3481976
>Take the square root of 4. What did the outcome yield. Plus or minus 2.
Contrary to ignorant belief, the square root function on Real Numbers is defined to only return the positive root.

x^2 = 4 has two solutions, x = -2 and x = 2.
|x| = 2 has two solutions, x = -2 and x = 2.
x = 2 has one solution, x = 2.
x = sqrt(4) has one solution, x = 2.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:51:43 2011 No.3482001

>>3481987
Also, for the second part, it's easy to understand a machine which does like XOR ( 1, 0 ) and XOR ( 0, 1) will always return true, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a fourth machine which will readily determine which of the first two inputs halts of the third machine and determine haltability from that.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:51:43 2011 No.3482003

>>3481987
I don't understand? It's pretty straightforward.

pseudo-code:

int main()
{
int n = readDemarkedInteger(stdin);
if (n == 0)
return 1;
char * x = readChars(stdin, n, x)
if (x == 0)
return 1;
char * y = readRemainingChars(stdin);
if (y == 0)
return 1;
FOO * compiled_x = compile(x);
if (compiled_x == 0)
return 1;
int simulationResult = simulate(compiled_x, y);
if (simulationResult == halted)
return 0;
if (simulationResult == would_run_without_limit)
return 1;

//can't reach here.
}

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:52:43 2011 No.3482007 >>3482003 >char * x = readChars(stdin, n, x); typo, should read: >char * x = readChars(stdin, n);

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:53:43 2011 No.3482010 >>3482003 Oh - forgive my use of the type "int". I obviously wanted some bignum arbitrary precision/scale type.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:53:43 2011 No.3482016

>>3481949
>Not knowing how to read the bible
>Why would he do what he does otherwise. Show some gratitude
>People cant show honor
>Do you have something to hide
>Where is my imagination located
>Read the bible
>Where did you get this shit from
>Why create limitations
>self evident
>this is silly
>also silly
>they don't. Or do they?
>you cant torture the ground
>what distance
>why would he.
>appearance of age
>time is subjective
>He isnt obligated to do anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:54:43 2011 No.3482018 >>3481990 >x = sqrt(4) has one solution, x = 2. I see you've never taken calculus. Its plus or minus 2 for a reason.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:55:43 2011 No.3482022

>>3482001
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you want to produce the Halting decider, or comment on the proof more, I will be receptive. However, what you just said involved lots of fiat and handwaving, so I am unable to comment further.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:55:43 2011 No.3482023 >>3482018 But you are right. Its only one solution in that it can only be one of those.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:56:43 2011 No.3482024

>>3481976
>Omnipotence/omniscience is easily conceivable.
can he create a wall to tall for him to climb? an object to heavy for him to lift? Omnipotence by definition is impossible.
>Take the square root of 4. What did the outcome yield. Plus or minus 2.
What's your point? I said "Creating free will is like programing a computer to do something that it isn't told to do". That has nothing to do with square root of 4.
>The world could have very well been created in 5 days with an appearance of age or many other interpretations of that.
It doesn't say, It looked like it took 5 days. Or i was watching and it took 5 days. It said as a fact it took 5 days.
>If i had the resources i could contrive a method of fitting every animal on a arc. Or... you could be misinterpreting it. Read it in its original language. Its much more ambiguous.
I don't know how to read its original language and don't care to. The arc theory is impossible. It doesn't even explain trees or underground things or where the water went. Nothing about it makes sense.
>5000 years. As I said, appearance of age is possible.
Again it doesn't say it appears to be 5000 years old. It says it is 5000 years old.

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:56:43 2011 No.3482026 >>3482018 I can see that you've only taken calculus I, and nothing more. It's ok, you leave the hard stuff to people who actually studied it and enjoyed it.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:57:43 2011 No.3482030

>Why would he. Whats the point of that.
Isn't his goal to get humans into heaven? So that seems like it would follow directly to his point.
>What about them
Are they in hell? Why? At what point did he decide to give humans souls?
>I see you dont understand what a christian is
Implying time is linear and deterministic.
I see you don't understand. Christianity says time is linear. But that has nothing to do with what I said about infants that die.
>why would he.
The question was why wouldn't he... why would he is not a response. It should end in a question mark anyways which means it is a question. But he would do that because the point of creating earth and the whole universe and everything is pointless. If he's stupid enough to take extra steps for no reason why would he be a god?

I love how the first thing you try to do is insult me with no real reasoning behind the insults.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:57:43 2011 No.3482031

>>3482003
Uh, except simulate can readily determine whether or not x on y halts. There's only two actual outcomes:

A program which ends.

A program which loops.

A program can loop but create more programs, it sounds like just people can't understand functional programming.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 06:59:43 2011 No.3482042

>>3482031
>Uh, except simulate can readily determine whether or not x on y halts. There's only two actual outcomes:

This is the point of contention. The proof demonstrates that there is no such function.

If you want, the problem can be quite easily rephrased so that the source code of H contains all the source for g++, and the source code of G contains the source for H, so that neither G nor H need to write to any file nor spawn any new process. They are both entirely self contained.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:00:43 2011 No.3482049 >>3482026 hey dont even teach this in calc I

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:00:43 2011 No.3482050 >>3482042 Except that's a fucking loop. What don't people get that you can compare functions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:01:43 2011 No.3482052 >>3482030 all nonsensical

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:01:43 2011 No.3482053 >>3482050 I do not understand what you are talking about. Could you be more clear please?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:04:43 2011 No.3482065 >>3482024 Omnipotence would be the equivalent to an author over a book. >Can J.K rowling write about a rock so heavy she cant lift. Dumbest shit i've heard all day.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:05:43 2011 No.3482070

>>3482053
In order to understand whether or not something halts you don't need to understand what it does, you need to understand the halting conditions.

All I can see from the argument for the halting problem is that you can't create a program which returns a result if it takes two confirmative inputs to output a value, when all it receives is non-confirmative values.

I.e., XOR will always return 1 whether you put in 1,0 or 0,1.

By pretty much ALL other arguments in mathematics the halting problem doesn't exist, such as ANY argument for transcendental numbers or .9repeating = 1.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:05:43 2011 No.3482073 >>3482065 fullretard.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:06:43 2011 No.3482077 >>3482070 Again, you're not presenting the C source for the Halting Problem decider, and you are not attacking any particular step of the proof. You're just hand waving that the proof is wrong and that you can have a Halting Problem decider.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:08:43 2011 No.3482085 >>3482077 Simulate is undefined. You can define simulate to either come up with a result or it doesn't. There's no paradox.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:08:43 2011 No.3482086 >>3482070 Btw, what the fuck does "confirmative value" even mean?

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:09:43 2011 No.3482091

>>3482085
>Simulate is undefined. You can define simulate to either come up with a result or it doesn't. There's no paradox.
I don't know what this means. Are you trying to say that it's possible to write the simulate function so that it will always return in finite time, and return "halted" or "will_run_forever" always correctly? Again, the proof demonstrates that this is impossible - there is no such function.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:10:43 2011 No.3482095

>>3482086
I was thinking of using the term positive value, but that would imply a positive value.

I meant "confirmative" as in "if the program receives the expected input, it does x". A confirmative value would be the expected input, like 1 == 2 would result in false, which is a non-confirmative value for the test which determines whether a == b given a and b.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:11:43 2011 No.3482100

>>3482016
Maybe you can try answering the question.
That's my point. Why would he do any of this?
Why does he want people to worship him by building statues?
Ignoring my question again.
That doesn't even make sense.
Again just ignoring my question.
Thought of it on the spot. But you keep ignoring the questions.
But he did create limitations. The universe has an end it doesn't go on forever.
Are you telling me self evident as in they believed in him so they knew for a fact he was real. That is just full retard.
ignoring the question.
ignoring the question again.
According to christianity they don't. but why is the question.
I was saying the rock but not the ground. But either way your just hurting gods creations. Or is it the fact that it's feeling the pain? In that case give animal sedatives then torture it and its the same as a rock?
God is in heaven right?
Well he wants people to worship him right? and to believe in him. Well this would be a simple solution. but again saying why wouldn't he isn't answering my question.
Here appearance of age makes sense sorta. but why would he bother making appearance of age?
Time is not subjective if your christian. As a religion it is believed that there is only one time flow.
I didn't say he is obligated, i was just wondering why he would bother.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:13:43 2011 No.3482105

>>3482091
No this "proof" doesn't. That's the problem you're not grasping, is by making up words that are said to be logical, you purposefully obfuscate the problem and can't even understand it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

All programs result in loops or halts, even if "looping" means creating a mutating program which never repeats itself.

I'm tired of people saying "go read the proof" when all they can say is circular arguments like "simulate can't determine the outcome of the program because it can't"

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:14:43 2011 No.3482110

>>3482105
>
All programs result in loops or halts, even if "looping" means creating a mutating program which never repeats itself.

Why yes, this is correct. All algorithms either halt or run forever.

The Halting Problem is whether there is a singular algorithm which can decide whether all other algorithms halt. That is undecidable. The proof demonstrates thus.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:17:43 2011 No.3482117

>>3482110
Except a "singular algorithm" can literally mean an algorithm which recurses through a database of all possible programs and inputs and determines whether or not the program will end.

The argument is almost the same as dualism, that somehow programs can be understood, but they can't be understood by programs. You don't have to simulate programs to understand them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:17:43 2011 No.3482120 >>3482100 Maybe when you stop asking whats the speed of darkness or questions subject to your subjective methods you can get the answer you are looking for.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:18:43 2011 No.3482122 >>3482052 >all nonsensical really? Not even going to try to debate. Say anything you want and i'll respond. Even if you go full retard and make no sense.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:20:43 2011 No.3482137

>>3482117
Sorry, I missed the thing I specified else-thread, which is a finitely describable algorithm. Consulting a database of infinite size means it's no longer finitely describable.

If you have an algorithm which is not finitely describable (whatever that means), then sure, you might be able to use it to decide the Halting Problem.

>>3482122
I'm not really sure what to say. I have presented a very standard, well accepted proof that you are taught in every intro to Theory of CS course. The Halting Problem is not decidable. All (finitely describable) algorithms either halt or run forever.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:21:43 2011 No.3482144 >>3482120 >Maybe when you stop asking ... questions subject to your subjective methods you can get the answer you are looking for. Wat?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:23:43 2011 No.3482151

>>3480280
the existence of bible proves that God does not exist. It full of contradictions, it was written by a bunch of men who never had contact with each other and never met Jesus, and why would a omnipresent being need a holy text?

I can't say about any other religions having never read their text, but trust me if you read the entire bible it makes no sense. God's can not contradict them selves as that would be imperfect for a being that is meant to be perfect and faultless.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:25:43 2011 No.3482160 >>3482144 Simply put. Stop asking why blue is better than green.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:26:43 2011 No.3482162

>>3482137
>I'm not really sure what to say. I have presented a very standard, well accepted proof that you are taught in every intro to Theory of CS course. The Halting Problem is not decidable. All (finitely describable) algorithms either halt or run forever.
Err, bad link. My bad. Responding to the other train of conversation in this thread.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:27:43 2011 No.3482170

>>3482137
Regoing over your program, your program could be considered the most naive solution to the halting problem. One which determines whether or not something halts by compiling it and running it.

Your program would continue forever on something as simple as for(;;)

The problem with that naive solution is it says there's no method by which we can abstract programs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:28:43 2011 No.3482173 HOLY SHIT HOW HAS THIS OBVIOUS TROLL THREAD GOTTEN HUNDREDS OF REPLIES

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:28:43 2011 No.3482176 >>3482173 For me and this other fellow, this thread has evolved into a science thread, begone.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:28:43 2011 No.3482177

>>3482170
>Regoing over your program, your program could be considered the most naive solution to the halting problem. One which determines whether or not something halts by compiling it and running it.

I never said it runs it. I said it uses some magic, unspecified method of determining whether it halts or runs forever. "Simulate" was not meant as a literal linux VM. It was meant as whatever code is required to do the heavy lifting.

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:29:43 2011 No.3482183 >>3482177 And participating in multiple threads, so it's annoying to keep the name up.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:30:43 2011 No.3482189

>>3482160
What did I say that relates at all to "why is blue better than green". My questions were all questions that seem to not make sense if god does exist. No matter the answer you should still come to the conclusion that god does not exist.

If your saying blue being better than green as in no answer is correct well that's true. If your saying it means the question doesn't make sense, read it again, all the questions make sense. If your saying there is no possible right answer, doesn't that only farther prove my point?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:31:43 2011 No.3482193 >>3482177 Then your program is a circular argument. I can easily imagine a problem which says existshaltcondition(x) and say it always determines whether or not there exists a halting condition for the program.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:32:43 2011 No.3482199 Because the existence of God is not a scientific question. If I run into a tricky math problem I don't ask my history professor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:33:43 2011 No.3482206 >>3482199 you realize your post is 7 hours after Op's.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:33:43 2011 No.3482210

>>3482193
If you prefer, I can rewrite H with that primitive instead. The proof does not change.

//H
int main()
{
int n = readDemarkedInteger(stdin);
if (n == 0)
return 1;
char * x = readChars(stdin, n);
if (x == 0)
return 1;
char * y = readRemainingChars(stdin);
if (y == 0)
return 1;
FOO * compiled_x = compile(x);
if (compiled_x == 0)
return 1;
int will_halt_result = will_halt(compiled_x, y);
if (will_halt_result)
return 0;
return 1;
}

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:34:43 2011 No.3482217 >>3482189 No the question implies one color is better than the other. Its subjective. Your questioning lack of motives which imply the there is a need for a motive in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:35:43 2011 No.3482220 >>3482210 That's exactly the point. Unless there is some proof of a program which does not repeat, does not halt, and doesn't form a recognizable form which generates other forms, the argument for the halting problem is moot.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:37:43 2011 No.3482236

>>3482220
I don't think you're following the conversation.

I agree that all programs halt, or run forever. I agree there is no other option. For all programs X, for all inputs Y, X on Y will either halt in some finite number of steps or X on Y will run forever.

The question is whether there is some finitely describable program which can be given an arbitrary program and input and decide (in finite time) if that arbitrary program and input would halt or run forever. That is the Halting Problem. There is no such program.

I apologize if this is not what you're saying, but you're being way too vague.
>Unless there is some proof of a program which does not repeat, does not halt,
I agree there is no such program.

>[... then] the argument for the halting problem is moot.
I disagree with this.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:43:43 2011 No.3482257

>>3482217
Well yes it does imply that there is no god.
If you asked me
Why is blue better than green?
I would respond. It isn't. Green is my favorite color because it reminds me of the green grass in the morning. Or it isn't because blue reminds me of ___. whatever it doesn't matter, it's a question where you can respond however you want regardless of what I'm saying. If what I'm saying has no ground, respond by saying why it has no ground.
I honestly don't think any of the questions where subjective. They were all implying stuff, but the stuff i was implying are things that are all true if you are a christian.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:45:43 2011 No.3482262

>>3482236
Except there's different ways to determine whether or not a program halts.

The most naive example is one which runs the program to completion. In that case, the only answers you can get are "ended" and "hasn't ended".

However in the case of say a for(;;), a program can determine this doesn't halt. How? By definition it runs on forever, yet we know it continues on forever. Then how do we "know"? The answer is it returns a results which produces itself only. The naive solution has failed in this case, and only an intelligent algorithm can be used. When you don't define the algorithm as having the ability to "wrap it's head" around infinite programs, of course the halting problem exists. The only way to prove that a given input to an intelligent halter program can't find a generalizable solution is to prove there IS a program which cannot be replicated. So far all you've argued is saying the halting problem exists when that's not the argument, it's whether or not a non-generalizable program exists.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:45:43 2011 No.3482266

>>3482220
>That's exactly the point. Unless there is some proof of a program which does not repeat, does not halt, and doesn't form a recognizable form which generates other forms, the argument for the halting problem is moot.

I think I'm starting to see what you're trying to get at.

You're arguing that a Turing machine will either
1- halt, or
2- repeat a previous configuration (a program state), or
3- will run so that there will be a series of configurations (a series of program states) which imply that it'll run forever.

I agree with that assessment. I agree that 1 and 2 are detectable by an "executing / simulating" program. You are mistaken when you (very implicitly) claim that all cases of 3 are detectable by a finitely describable algorithm. It is not.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:47:43 2011 No.3482273

>>3482236
different person. But I understand all parts of this program that your saying, expect the main line. "the program will say this is false" or whatever it says. What's so important about this line? Why can't it be anything else? I realize that the line contradicts itself but a program will give its first answer and move on right? Sorry not to into programming.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:48:43 2011 No.3482286

>>3482262

>Except there's different ways to determine whether or not a program halts.
Indeed.

>The most naive example is one which runs the program to completion. In that case, the only answers you can get are "ended" and "hasn't ended".
Correct.

>However in the case of say a for(;;), a program can determine this doesn't halt.
Again correct.

>How? By definition it runs on forever, yet we know it continues on forever. Then how do we "know"? The answer is it returns a results which produces itself only.
Again correct. The machine repeats a previous configuration / state.

>The naive solution has failed in this case, and only an intelligent algorithm can be used. When you don't define the algorithm as having the ability to "wrap it's head" around infinite programs, of course the halting problem exists.
I am not doing that.

>The only way to prove that a given input to an intelligent halter program can't find a generalizable solution is to prove there IS a program which cannot be replicated.
Not sure what you mean by replicated.

>So far all you've argued is saying the halting problem exists when that's not the argument, it's whether or not a non-generalizable program exists.
You're misusing terms. The Halting Problem is a decision problem. The definition for a "decision problem" is given at >>3481828

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:49:43 2011 No.3482288

>>3482266
Then by the virtue of 3's existence then, won't the program eventually create a halting-problem solver by going through all possible programs which means that the first "finite" program actually CAN solve the halting problem for all possible values by creating the infinite program required to do so?

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:49:43 2011 No.3482289 >>3482273 >the program will say this is false Sorry. Please be more clear. I am unable to find that quote else-thread. Please link to the specific post at least.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:50:43 2011 No.3482291

>>3482257
Heres the thing. The implications are either not true or subjective.
Its the same as the weak argument of why god hasn't removed evil.
To begin with evil is subjective and then it implies that it is his responsibility to remove evil. Which is not true.
I cant answer whats the speed of darkness as it implies darkness has a speed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:52:43 2011 No.3482299 >>3482286 Start your discussion with that other bro. I'm going to bed (7:50 AM here) I'll read up on some papers or something for the halting problem maybe tomorrow or something.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:52:43 2011 No.3482302 >>3481707 The oracle when given this proposition will report false. >>3482289 This is still the same topic right? I did I miss something?

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:53:43 2011 No.3482305

>>3482288
>Then by the virtue of 3's existence then, won't the program eventually create a halting-problem solver by going through all possible programs which means that the first "finite" program actually CAN solve the halting problem for all possible values by creating the infinite program required to do so?

Let me see if I understand this. You're suggesting that the decider program for the Halting Problem, when given an input program X on input Y, it will start iterating through all possible programs (which is possible), and once it finds a program Z that correctly determines if X halts on Y, then it'll use that? How, pray tell, do you suppose that it correctly determines if Z produces correct results? That would require proving that Z would halt, which is the source of our dilemma. You can't use the machine that you're trying to build to implement the machine.

CS Dude Sun Jul 31 07:58:43 2011 No.3482317

>>3482236
>different person. But I understand all parts of this program that your saying, expect the main line. "the program will say this is false" or whatever it says. What's so important about this line? Why can't it be anything else? I realize that the line contradicts itself but a program will give its first answer and move on right? Sorry not to into programming.

The Oracle machine is a deterministic machine which answers "true" or "false" to properly formed boolean expressions. The question of whether the Oracle will answer "true" to a particular question is a properly formed boolean expression. The boolean expression contains an encoding of the Oracle. When you give that boolean expression, "The Oracle will say that this boolean expression is false.", then we've put the Oracle in a pickle.

If the Oracle answers "true", then "The Oracle will say that this boolean expression is false." is true, which means that the Oracle will say it's false. Oh wait... contradiction.

If the Oracle answers "false", then "The Oracle will say that this boolean expression is false." is false, which means that the Oracle will say it's true. Oh wait... contradiction.

I mostly retyped what I wrote before. Not sure how to better answer it. It's important that it's that in order to set up the machine to analyze itself. It's part of the supposition that the Oracle is a (finitely describable deterministic) algorithm. Thus, all questions about its behavior ought to be answerable by the Oracle.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:03:43 2011 No.3482337 >>3482291 Will it ever actually get to the analyzing portion?

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 08:04:43 2011 No.3482344 >>3482337 Wrong post link?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:07:43 2011 No.3482358 >>3482344 Yup not quite sure how that one happened.

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 08:08:43 2011 No.3482363 >>3482358 I don't know if "it'll ever get to analyzing", quote unquote, as the Oracle machine cannot exist. The proof demonstrates that it cannot exist. I can't comment on the behavior of impossibilities.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:08:43 2011 No.3482366 >>3482291 No but you can answer that darkness does not have a speed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:09:43 2011 No.3482373 >>3482363 So the part I'm struggling to understand is how do we now its impossible if we can't determine a point where it would fail.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:10:43 2011 No.3482381

>>3482373
One cannot determine where the "machine will fail" if it is impossible to specify the machine. That's the whole point. It is impossible to specify an Oracle machine. It's like asking for a positive Real which is also less than 0. It's a simple logical impossibility.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:14:43 2011 No.3482399 >>3482381 Its more like asking "Why is there no real number lower than 0". Or at least i think so. I understand that the program is going to contradict itself at one point, I just don't know when it will hit that point.

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 08:17:43 2011 No.3482407 >>3482399 Ok. You want to know when the program will contradict itself. First, you need to tell me which program? Can you specify it please? I defined an Oracle machine as a logical inconsistency. What machine are you talking about?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:21:43 2011 No.3482426

>>3482407
Well i don't know what the letter scheme we were using was. But let's say a>b>c. so a should ultimately be impossible to get a solution. so either b or c has to reach a point where it will contradict itself. I understand what the contradiction is. I just don't understand how its not just getting an answer right from the beginning and ignoring the fact that its contradicting itself.
If what i just said makes no sense its cause I'm really tired. If that's the case just tell me to go to sleep.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:23:43 2011 No.3482433

>>3482426
Sleep. Maybe looking at this later will make more sense. As is, I'm not really sure what you're saying. You keep assuming the existence of a machine and talking about where it fails. I ask again "What machine? The one we should proved cannot be specified? How do you propose to run a machine for which you lack a specification?"

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:27:43 2011 No.3482448

>>3482433
I understand completely what your saying. And I understand what I'm thinking. I just can't understand how to ask what I'm thinking. I probably just need sleep.Thanks so much for your effort in trying to explain it to me. I'll figure this out in the morning. 7 am now. so i guess I'll figure it out some time tomorrow night. Thanks again.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:47:43 2011 No.3482508

>226 posts and image replies omitted
You guys are fucking retarded as hell. Next time I want to troll idiots, I'll come here. WHY can't you fucking realize that every fucking debate here that you think you look smart when you reply to, is started by a fucking troll to TROLL you. Fuck. Whoever is making these threads I'm not even angry at him anymore, you fucking deserve it.

Yes, IMAD.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 14:06:43 2011 No.3483705 >>3482508 2 things. No one was responding to the troll. If you look there wasn't a conversation involving OP. Also the point of a troll is to get people mad and let me say, he wasn't successful until your post.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 20:39:43 2011 No.3485702 >>3480280 >If science is so great, how come you haven't proven that god doesn't exist? If religion is so great, how come you haven't achieved world peace?

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 20:42:43 2011 No.3485708 >>3482508 >>3483705 Lol. Someone necro bumped the Halting Problem thread without reading it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 20:44:43 2011 No.3485711 File: 6 KB, 200x141, alladingenie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] mfw I load up this thread, and the scroll bar almost disappears.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 21:01:43 2011 No.3485796 File: 69 KB, 650x722, 1278985143850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >If science is so great, how come you haven't proven that god doesn't exist? 229 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>	CS Dude Sun Jul 31 21:04:43 2011 No.3485804 >>3485796 >Not reading the thread and seeing half the post are discussing the Halting Problem. Don't do that

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 21:24:43 2011 No.3485899

>>3480280
Omnipotent beings are contradictory and thus don't exist.
Deities may or may not exist within one of the larger multiverses (highly unlikely in our own), but they would be entirely natural, and not only that, in certain ontologies (such as mathematical platonism), it's possible to set yourself up as one with enough effort (basically just a generally intelligent being with exponentially growing computable power in a universe supporting such type of existence would be enough).
Most arguments that actually require the existence of omnipotent beings require suspension of reason and saying that their deity can actually make a true statement false without modifying the axiomatic system (assuming consistency).
For intelligent beings which use reason this is strong enough "proof", but it won't work on someone who willingly suspends reason when dealing with deities.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 21:30:43 2011 No.3485938

Actually the best way to prove that God doesn't exist is by studying English, History, Sociology and Political Science. Once one reads up, one soon realize that religion is just a tool to keep that masses in line.

It's not that God never existed, it's that God is now obsolete.

Funny enough, science is now serving this same role to justify peoples actions. Terms like "genetics" and "sociopath" are thrown around like "god's will" and "evil spirits" were in the past without any deeper understanding of the meaning of those words.

Oh, I don't know if this was covered but we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor. Here's a handy video to help you out:http://www.khanacademy.org/video/introduction-to-evolution-and-natural-selection?playlist=Biolog
y

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math