Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IEgg4p+oxKTin6kg4p+oxKTin6kgaXMgY29ycmVjdCB3aGVuIHJl?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees?=
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:33:56 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usvqg5$1sokd$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <usda7b$18hee$1@dont-email.me> <usdf9p$15934$2@i2pn2.org>
 <usdh1e$19t14$1@dont-email.me> <usdrrd$1bil8$1@dont-email.me>
 <usdseg$1bqt3$2@dont-email.me> <usdvj7$1fvhm$4@dont-email.me>
 <use138$15q44$4@i2pn2.org> <use1sh$1gd96$2@dont-email.me>
 <use37h$15q45$3@i2pn2.org> <use4f1$1grfn$1@dont-email.me>
 <8634t1nx2p.fsf@yaxley.in> <usfase$1p1t5$1@dont-email.me>
 <usfd8m$1p8cg$4@dont-email.me> <ush8rt$288t1$1@dont-email.me>
 <usi0ej$2d0oc$2@dont-email.me> <usk8s1$2v4mk$1@dont-email.me>
 <uskg40$30hr1$2@dont-email.me> <usmk7t$3hvpu$1@dont-email.me>
 <usn4k9$3li08$1@dont-email.me> <usn7b3$3m7lb$1@dont-email.me>
 <usn89c$3m7k2$4@dont-email.me> <usp4u1$6nok$1@dont-email.me>
 <uspnac$aqak$1@dont-email.me> <usq00t$1l201$4@i2pn2.org>
 <usq0ru$caqa$11@dont-email.me> <usq8l4$1l201$27@i2pn2.org>
 <usq9mu$f2ir$1@dont-email.me> <usqaeb$1l201$29@i2pn2.org>
 <usqbfu$fgna$1@dont-email.me> <usuni1$1j259$1@dont-email.me>
 <usvo39$1rdem$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:33:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1991309"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usvo39$1rdem$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9488
Lines: 180

On 3/14/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 6:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-12 19:47:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 2:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:34:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 14:31:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-10 14:29:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-09 15:49:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-08 16:09:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2024 9:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-08 05:23:34 +0000, Yaxley Peaks said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With all of these extra frills, aren't you working 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside the premise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the halting problem? Like how Andre pointed out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, he is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem concerns itself with turing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose is not a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is true. However, we can formulate similar 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems and proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for other classes of machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on the computability of the halting problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the exact same TMD / input pairs) by a slightly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> augmented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion of Turing machines as elaborated below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott machines are entirely comprised of a UTM + TMD 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra step that any UTM could perform, append the TMD 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of its own tape.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An important question to answer is whether a Turing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate your machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott machines are entirely comprised of a UTM + TMD 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra step that any UTM could perform, append the TMD 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its own tape.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then a Turing machine can simulate your machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, except the TM doing the simulating cannot be an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not "ecept", that is containted in what the word 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Truring machine"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anway, a Truing machine can, with a simulation of your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything your machine can, so your machine cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute anyting a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine cannot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machines, Olcott Machines, RASP machines and my C 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can always correctly report on the behavior of their actual 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When they report on this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If they only talk about themselves they are not useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When every simulating halt decider reports on the actual 
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> that it actually sees, then the pathological input does not
>>>>>>>>>>> thwart it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it is not useful then nobody cares whether some input can 
>>>>>>>>>> thwart it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best selling author of Theory of Computation textbooks:
>>>>>>>>> *Introduction To The Theory Of Computation 3RD, by sipser*
>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Date 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
>>>>>>>>> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is 
>>>>>>>>> correct*
>>>>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this 
>>>>>>>>> paper)
>>>>>>>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input 
>>>>>>>>> D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never 
>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D 
>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *When we apply this criteria* (elaborated above)
>>>>>>>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
>>>>>>>>> *Then the halting problem is solved*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that isn't what you asked,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You asked if the CORRECT SIMULATION of the input won't stop, can 
>>>>>>>> H abort its simlation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, if H aborts it simulation, then BY DEFINITION, its 
>>>>>>>> simulation doesn't go on forever and isn't a correct simulation, 
>>>>>>>> so that doesn't apply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is your persistently repeated mistake that has been corrected
>>>>>>> hundreds of times that a correct simulation requires a complete
>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The words that Professor Sipser agreed to clearly mean that
>>>>>>> when a correct partial simulation of D proves that a correct
>>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H
>>>>>>> has both its abort criteria and its halt status criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, because there is no such thing in Computation theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only in your incorrect reconstruction from lack of principles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't say "PARTIAL", so he wasn't even thinking of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "simulates its input D until"
>>>>> clearly does not mean simulate forever
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you said:
>>>>
>>>> ... until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never 
>>>> stop running unless aborted
>>>>
>>> The "until" clearly does not mean to simulate forever.
>>
>> But "would never stop" clearly does.
>>
> 
> Only when you ignore the rest of the sentence.
> "simulated D would never stop running {unless aborted}
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========