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