Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: We finally know exactly how H1(D,D) derives a different result than H(D,D) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 01:07:02 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 304 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 07:07:03 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cbe692f823dc8310f00dd0aaf1f84978"; logging-data="1652836"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Lz3XQj1rLXCX7nzGT3bPn" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ryuIZxpEzTaZ9KtfS5O2yYAEQQc= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 13656 On 3/8/2024 12:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/7/24 10:00 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/7/2024 9:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/7/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/7/2024 5:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/7/24 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/7/2024 4:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/7/24 1:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> H1(D,D) maps its input + its own machine address 00001422 to its >>>>>>>> output. >>>>>>>>   H(D,D) maps its input + its own machine address 00001522 to >>>>>>>> its output. >>>>>>>> Thus both H1 and H are computable functions of their input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And thus you are admitting that Neither H or H1 are actually >>>>>>> correct Halt Deciders, as Halt Deciders must be only a function >>>>>>> of the description of the Compuation to be decided. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It turns out that both H(D,D) and H1(D,D) do correctly determine >>>>>> whether or not they must abort the simulation of their input. >>>>> >>>>> Which isn't the halting question, so you are LYING. >>>> >>>> As I completely explained yet you persistently ignore the >>>> halting question can only be correctly answered indirectly >>>> otherwise inputs that contradict the decider that is embedded >>>> within these inputs have no answer at all. >>> >>> In other words you argue by lying. >>> >>> The QUESTION is, and always will be, does the computation described >>> by the input Halt when run. >>> >>> The Computation so described is FIXED and UNCHANGING reguards of what >>> the decider that is deciding does, as is the behavior of the H that >>> it is built on. >>> >>> That was FIXED and made UNCHANGING when it was defined. >>> >>> Thus, the question does THIS H^(H^) halt? HAS a definite and fixed >>> answer. SO you LIE when you said it doesn't. >>> >>> Your problem seems to be that you think "Get the Right Answer?" is a >>> valid program instruction, or that H can somehow "change" itself >>> after H^ gets defined. IT CAN'T. >>> >>> YOU persistently ignore this fact, likely because you are too stupid >>> and ignorant to understand that fundamental nature of programs, that >>> they will do what their programming says they will do, and that >>> programming doesn't change, EVER, with out the creation of some NEW >>> program that is different from its predicesor. >>> >>> YOU *NEVER* have the right to change the question for a problem. >>> >>> You can try to point out the the problem is inconsistant, and propose >>> a NEW PROBLEM, but that doesn't change the old. >>> >>> You can talk about your new problem that you think is more useful >>> than the actual Halting Problem, after all, someone might be more >>> interested in the incorrect opinion of an admittedly faulty >>> "Olcott-Halt Decider" than the actual behavior of the Computation >>> they are interested in. >>> >>> NOT. >>> >>> What you can't to is say you are working on one problem, while trying >>> to change it to mean something different. That is just call LYING, >>> and you seem to know that you doing it (you might feel you have >>> justified reasons to talk about a different problem) so the lie is >>> DELIBERATE. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That you or others consider this somehow improper does not change >>>>>> the verified fact that they both correctly determine whether or >>>>>> not they must abort their simulation. >>>>> >>>>> Which isn't the Halting Question, which you claim you are working >>>>> on, so you are just LYING. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Already fully explained many many times (including above) >>>> yet your ignorance is very persistent. >>> >>> So, you think you can change the question and still be talking about >>> the same question. >>> >>> You ARE the LIAR PARADOX. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is also the case that both H1(D,D) and H(D,D) are a pure function >>>>>> of their inputs when we construe their own machine address to be an >>>>>> element of these inputs. >>>>> >>>>> Which means they are not computing the Halting Function, which >>>>> isn't a function of the decider, so again, you are LYING. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Already fully explained many many times (including above) >>>> yet your ignorance is very persistent. >>> >>> Yes, you have ADMITTED that you are LYING about working on the >>> Halting Problem. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Turing machines don't even have the idea of their own machine >>>>>>>> address so this exact same thing cannot be Turing computable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And it isn't a Halt Decider even in Olcott machines as the >>>>>>> algorithm is shown to vary by a parameter that it isn't allowed >>>>>>> to vary to be a Halt Decider. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Olcott machines entirely anchored in Turing machine notions >>>>>>>> can compute the equivalent of H1(D,D) and H(D,D). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because Olcott machines are essentially nothing more than >>>>>>>> conventional UTM's combined with Conventional Turing machine >>>>>>>> descriptions their essence is already fully understood. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional >>>>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine >>>>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When this input is ignored Olcott machines compute the >>>>>>>> exact same set as Turing machines. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unlike Turing machines, Olcott machines have the basis to >>>>>>>> determine that they have been called with copies of their >>>>>>>> own TMD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does >>>>>>>> not halt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With Olcott machines Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <Ĥ> and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ do >>>>>>>> not have the same inputs thus can compute different outputs >>>>>>>> when they do not ignore their own TMD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THen you build H^ wrong. Of course with your change in mechanics, >>>>>>> the H^ that needs to be generated will be a bit different. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That Olcott machines always know their own TMD is unconventional. >>>>> >>>>> And breaks much of the background of Turing Machines, >>>> >>>> Not at all. Not in the least little bit. >>>> Olcott machines are 100% fully specified >>>> in terms of Turing machines. >>> >>> Yes, BUT if you talk about an Olcott machine, you MUST include the >>> added data as part of the description of that machine, or you are >>> just LYING. >>> >>>> >>>>> so if you what to use ANY establish property of Turing Machine, you >>>>> must include that now extra data EXPLICITLY. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is already explicitly included in the definition of an Olcott >>>> machine. >>> >>> Which means that you can't actually write an Olcott-Machine that >>> matches the requirements for a Halt Decider. >>> >>> A Halt Decider MUST be able to defined as taking JUST the description ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========