Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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?= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:01:52 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 196 Message-ID: References: <8634t1nx2p.fsf@yaxley.in> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:01:53 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="628c0b780d2c261756f82ddadd066eb3"; logging-data="2019159"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BAuFY9S9YIbMMYf7w21NN" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:pdtPdzUrVYoIj2wJ5q8pjsH0DfU= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 10538 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>>> stop running unless aborted >>>>>>> >>>>>> The "until" clearly does not mean to simulate forever. >>>>> >>>>> But "would never stop" clearly does. >>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========