Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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: References: <8634t1nx2p.fsf@yaxley.in> 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: 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 ==========