Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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 14:33:56 -0700 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) 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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:33:57 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1991309"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 9488 Lines: 180 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. >> > > Only when you ignore the rest of the sentence. > "simulated D would never stop running {unless aborted} ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========