Okay /g/, tell me if this argument is sound: It is an undecidable

>>>/sci/

How bout you solve the problem of being a huge fagget?

>>55187437
>It is an undecidable problem to determine if two Turing Machines are equivalent.
If they are complex, but what about a turing machine that accepts only one input value (say, the number 7) and always halts?

Similarly, how about a turing machine that accepts a finite range of values and always halts?

such machines would be able to solve many infinities of simple problems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

>>55187565

Yes, but even for those simple problems, it should be undecidable if another turing machine is equivalent to it, no? Because again, you can't make predictions about machines that can make the same predictions as you and act accordingly.

>>55187588

Thank you for providing a wikipedia link to a subject with which I am already obviously familiar.

>>55187437
Anything you can ever hope to solve with a computer is already solvable right now with a Turing machine, we just haven't come up with how to do it.

>>55187682
You could hope to solve the halting problem, but you'd never be able to do it, no matter how hard you tried, how hard you hoped, or how hard you prayed to your favorite deity.

>>55187610
>it should be undecidable if another turing machine is equivalent to it, no?
there are a few ways to look at this and the more you dig the more complicated it gets

for a turing machine to be equivalent to another, it must produce the same result when given the same input, for all inputs. It may take a longer time to do so.

in many cases determining if two turing machines are equivalent is decidable given that we know one of the machines always halts.
because using logic it's possible to determine that some turing machines will halt for all inputs or will never halt for one or more inputs
we can emulate the first set of turing machines and determine if it is equivalent to our turing machine
the second set we know is not equivalent since it doesn't halt

But, there are some which can't be deduced and must be tested
and in this third set, the problem is undecidable because we can not emulate something that might never halt

now the question is, does this third (infinitely large) set of turing machines grow slower, at the same rate, or faster than the first two sets?
I would posit that it grows slower.

however even if we knew this, we'd only have solved one portion of the overall problem in determining if there are more undecidable than decidable problems

not a bad topic for a paper if you're looking to get published

>>55187798

>not a bad topic for a paper if you're looking to get published

Actually, after some googling, I've found quite a number of results suggesting that the set of undecidable problems is strictly greater than the number of decidable problems (and also that it's uncountably infinite). This is not the only time where I have come to a conclusion on my own that many others have come to before me.

>>55187870
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it went either way
in any case, you can still get a sweet paper out of it

>>55187870
>This is not the only time where I have come to a conclusion on my own that many others have come to before me.

want a medal?

>>55188005

Nah. I want a steak dinner, served with some bearnaise sauce. I also want a blowjob under the table from a cute girl that is pregnant with my child. But neither of these are likely to happen for a while, so some sleep would probably be best, since the sun is starting to come up.

File: Screenshot_20160621-074429.png (109KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1080x1920px

I fucking hate getting a new phone because every goddamn time I have to scroll through this shithole and pluck you fuckers out

take your trip off and I'll think about helping