Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
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 19:01:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 196
Message-ID: <ut035h$1tjqn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usda7b$18hee$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> <usvqg5$1sokd$5@i2pn2.org>
 <usvrd2$1ru1i$3@dont-email.me> <usvta6$1sokd$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:01:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="628c0b780d2c261756f82ddadd066eb3";
	logging-data="2019159"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BAuFY9S9YIbMMYf7w21NN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pdtPdzUrVYoIj2wJ5q8pjsH0DfU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usvta6$1sokd$8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10538

On 3/14/2024 5:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/14/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========