Path: ...!news.mixmin.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_--outermost_H--?=
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:29:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 268
Message-ID: <ut0bqc$1vmjr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usda7b$18hee$1@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> <ut035h$1tjqn$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut06h6$1tev8$2@i2pn2.org> <ut06n9$1u3jv$6@dont-email.me>
 <ut0ajf$1tev8$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:29:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="628c0b780d2c261756f82ddadd066eb3";
	logging-data="2087547"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19J3RsIqz1Oh4xruRtn8JIs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f7s0vDYnCuTguqBfn0xg98v4izw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ut0ajf$1tev8$5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 14078

On 3/14/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/14/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/14/24 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========