Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_A_simulating_halt_decider_applied_to_the_The_Peter_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Linz_Turing_Machine_description_=E2=9F=A8=C4=A4=E2=9F=A9_--_key_d?= =?UTF-8?Q?etails?= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:56:12 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:56:12 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3111940"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 8575 Lines: 148 On 6/3/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/3/2024 10:27 AM, wij wrote: >> On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 18:16 +0300, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-03 12:36:00 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/3/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-02 13:21:56 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/2/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-01 19:26:55 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 1:52 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 09:37:01 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-31 15:35:18 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *A quick summary of the reasoning provided below* >>>>>>>>>>>> The LHS is behavior that embedded_H is allowed to report on. >>>>>>>>>>> There is no restrictions on what embedded_H is allowed to >>>>>>>>>>> report on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is only allowed to report on the behavior that its >>>>>>>>>> finite >>>>>>>>>> string Turing Machine Description specifies to a UTM. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> embedded_H a UTM except that it stops simulating and reports >>>>>>>>>> non-halting as soon as it correctly recognizes a non-halting >>>>>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>>>>> pattern that is specified by its input. >>>>>>>>> "Except". So it is not an UTM. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>> (d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>> (e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>> (f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>> (g) goto (d) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is not allowed to be applied to Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because >>>>>>>>>> inputs can >>>>>>>>>> only be finite strings and Ĥ is not a finite string. This means >>>>>>>>>> that embedded_H is not allowed to report on its own actual >>>>>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>>>> I can't read that notation. What is H^ and what does it look like? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Here is the whole Linz proof* >>>>>>>> I simplified the Linz notation at the bottom of page 2 of the >>>>>>>> proof. >>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are right, that is a sufficient proof. You may change the >>>>>>> presentation >>>>>>> but then you must prove that your presentation is equivalent to >>>>>>> Linz'. >>>>>> >>>>>> The proof was removed until Joe could understand what Linz was saying >>>>>> Here is my actual proof. >>>>> >>>>> Linz' proof is Linz' proof, not yours. >>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> >>>>> The above does not say what Linz said and hardly anything else, >>>>> either. >>>>> It is not a sentence. If you remove the second last or the last line >>>>> or add some conjunction between them and add a point to the end then >>>>> you would have a sentence. >>>>> >>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> (d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> (e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> (f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> (g) goto (d) >>>>>> >>>>>> Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ derives a different result than >>>>>> embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. >>>>> >>>>> Irrelevant as embedded_H is not a part of Linz' proof. The part >>>>> of Linz' Ĥ that corresponds to your embedded_H does produce the >>>>> same result as Linz H does. >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf top of page 3 >>>> Linz named his embedded_H "Ĥq0" and has input Wm Wm >>>> because this is a second start state in the same machine >>>> Ben agrees that the Linz notation is wrong. >>> >>> I don't know (and don't expect to find out with a reasonable effort) >>> whay Linz uses the notation he uses. It does not really matter as >>> the meaning is clear from the text. You may use a better notation if >>> you know one but constructing a good notation is not easy. As a >>> test case you may cosider pair of Turing machines that are otherwise >>> identical but start at different states. >>> >>>>> Turns out that you can prove that the result produced by Linz' H is >>>>> different from the result produced by linz' H. This is sufficient to >>>>> prove that Linz' H does not exist. >>>>> >>>>>> This is because the in the latter case embedded_H must determine that >>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly stop >>>>>> running >>>>>> after 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation. Thus (as we can all see) >>>>>> embedded_H meets its abort simulation criteria. >>>>> >>>>> Those criteria are not mentioned in Linz' proof and are therefore >>>>> irrelevant to it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> They are not mentioned because like everyone else Linz rejects >>>> the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without review. >>> >>> The topic is halt deciders, not simulating halt deciders. If a >>> simulating halt decider is a halt decider then eerything that >>> is true about all halt deciders is true about all simulating >>> halt deciders. The proof that the set of halt deciders is empty >>> clearly prves the the set of simulating halt deciders is a >>> subset of an empty set (or the empty set, as there is only one). >>> >>>> When you look for "simulating halt decider" or >>>> "simulating termination analyzer" you only find me. >>> >>> Apparently people do not find subsets of the empty set >>> very interessting. >>> >> >> I think this may be one major reason olcott keeps repeating his claim. >> > > We cannot move on to the mathematics of this while everyone lies about > the arithmetic of it. > > DD correctly simulated by HH does not halt. After you acknowledge > the truth of this then we can move on to the next step that depends > on this step as its basis. > Which has been proven wrong, and your repeating it just proves that you are an ignorant pathological liar with a reckless disregard for the truth, which you seem to just not understand what it is.