Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_A_simulating_halt_decider_applied_to_the_The_Peter_Linz_Turing_Machine_description_=E2=9F=A8=C4=A4=E2=9F=A9?=
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 10:06:38 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 112
Message-ID:
References:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 09:06:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="171987d8304ab438b73528bfdb9cffdc";
logging-data="1679288"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PgDFkV5ZTqtL/PyyzdrH1"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6XCRuMUxa+EBf8kdfQkoP7KcaKI=
Bytes: 6416
On 2024-05-29 13:13:13 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/29/2024 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-28 11:34:24 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>
>>> On 5/27/24 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I totally do. Can you please write down the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "completely specified state transition/tape operation table."
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this specific (thus uniquely identifiable) machine I would
>>>>>>>>>>>> really like to see it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But it was proven that no such machine exists!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, the proof starts with the hypothetical that such a machine
>>>>>>>>>>> exists. Such a machine WOULD HAVE a completely specified state
>>>>>>>>>>> transition/tape operation table.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is not what you said.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> There doesn't need to be a unique finite string, but it is a 100%
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> completely specified state transition/tape operation table.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "a 100% completely specified state transition/tape operation table"
>>>>>>>>>> of a non-existent machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, by presuming that you have a Turing Machine, you have a
>>>>>>>>> completly specified state transition/tape operation table.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may not KNOW what that table is if you don't know what the exact
>>>>>>>>> machine is, but you know it exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> But it was proven that no such machine exists!
>>>>>>>> > ... but you know it exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> But it was proven that no such machine exists!
>>>>>>>> > ... but you know it exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> But it was proven that no such machine exists!
>>>>>>>> > ... but you know it exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really, then show that one exists!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>> *I am quoting your words. You did contradict yourself*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really, where did I say that H exists?
>>>>>
>>>>> I said that if a Turing Machine exists, then its transition table does too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK my mistake this time. I did not take into account the full context.
>>>> I will go back an read the Linz proof and see if he said anything
>>>> about a specific machine.
>>>
>>> Read the DEFINITION of the problem. He talks about "a" machine. Using a
>>> singular article means you are working with just one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Taking stuff out of context is a common problem with you, when you
>>> don't understand something, you just make up what it must mean, and
>>> stick to that. That isn't the way to learn.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> None of the proofs ever try to show that there exists one machine that
>>>> gets the wrong answer. They are always at least trying to prove that no
>>>> machine of the infinite set of machine gets the right answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What I see, is they always start with a prototypical single machine,
>>> and show that it gets the answer wrong, and then they use categorical
>>> logic to say that we can do this same thing for all of them.
>>
>> It is possible to formulate the claim and proof so that H is an universally
>> quantified variable. But the usual way is apparently equally good for the
>> target audience.
>>
>
> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
That is not a proof structure. That is the counter-hypothesis of Linz' proof.
Also note that both x and y are finite strings.
--
Mikko