Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:27:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <615b2f6aed91dfe97fc6cdd4ead97b371180bcc2@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vft4kp$23a0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvo2o$2ln20$1@dont-email.me> <vg09p2$2kq69$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg0a9h$2op6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org>
 <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <vg2b1h$373eq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2g2c$37lpn$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 00:27:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="523710"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vg2g2c$37lpn$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7196
Lines: 136

On 11/1/24 8:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/1/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-31 23:43:41 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:
>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
>>>>>>>>> less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
>>>>>>>>> responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
>>>>>>>>> answering.
>>>>>>>>     I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.
>>>>>>> Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron or a 
>>>>>>> liar
>>>>>>> I may politely pretend to believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these ways!
>>>>>> Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He is 
>>>>>> quite
>>>>>> often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or 
>>>>>> similar,
>>>>>> but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student in 
>>>>>> terms
>>>>>> of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] believing 
>>>>>> that he
>>>>>> has a unique insight.
>>>>>
>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
>>>>> the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>>>>>
>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
>>>>> the current received view of the theory of computation
>>>>> is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
>>>>> viewed as incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing you 
>>>> might come up with has any bearing on the original halting problem 
>>>> because you are working in a new framework?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am admitting one of two things:
>>> (1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
>>> as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
>>> actual input finite string.
>>
>> The finite strings specifying the behaviour are not a part
>> of the halting problem. Any solution is required to contain
>> encoding rules for the creation of those strings.
>>
> 
> Sure they are. The halting problem is entirely about finite
> string TM pairs when the finite string is a Turing machine
> description that specifies its own behavior. If it was not
> about the semantic property of the behavior specified by
> this finite string then we are left with syntactic properties
> that are known to be decidable.

Nope, the Halting problem doesn't START with the finite strings, but 
they are a later part of the problem.

The Halting problem is essentially about the Computablity of the 
"Halting Function" which has NOTHING to do about finite strings, except 
that the inputs to the machines are finite strings.

> 
>>> (2) I am resolving the halting problem in a way that is
>>> comparable to the way that ZFC resolved Russell's Paradox.
>>
>> Problems shall be solved, not resolved. The expression "resolving
>> the halting problem" does not mean anything because the types of
>> the words are not compatible. A paradox is a different type so
>> it can be resolved.
>>
> 
> It is iffy to say that ZFC solved Russell's Paradox because
> it is not solving the original problem it is redefining the
> basis of the problem.

The "Problem" was that set theory, as then being used was found to be 
inconsistant.



> 
>>> Establishing the foundation that the decider must report on
>>> the behavior of its own simulation of its input to compute
>>> the mapping from this input to its behavior.
>>
>> Establishing another foundation means that your work is about
>> something else than the halting problem. 
> 
> No more so than ZFC is not about the naive set theory form
> of Russell's Paradox.

So, you need to change what you are saying you are solving, since it 
clearly isn't about the "Halting Problem" or determining computablity.

> 
>> Another foundation
>> may be useful in finding something but it cannot be a part of
>> any solution of the halting problem.
> 
> Useful in the exact same way that ZFC resolved Russell's
> Paradox. Simply replace an incoherent basis with a coherent one.
> 

And if you want to do that, then DO IT. Stop trying to use the theory 
you think is broken and trying to add patches that can't work. do the 
work that Z-F did and DEFINE your system and show what you can do with it.

>>  Every solution to a halting
>> problem is either a Turing machine and encoding rules or a proof
>> that no pair of a Turing machine and encoding rules is a solution.
>>
> 
> You contradicted yourself there:
> "a proof that no pair of a Turing machine and encoding
> rules is a solution." *is not within the category of*
> "Every solution to a halting problem"
> 
>

But it would be. IF a Halting Decier existed, then it would be a Turing 
Machine, and with it would be a rule of how to encode ANY Turing Machine 
and its input.

If no such thing is possible, then proving that such a thing is 
impossible would be the needed proof.

That is what Turing Did, and what the Linz proof entails.

That there can not be a Turing Machine with a way to encode all possible 
inputs, as the Turing Machine to give the right answer for H^ can not 
exist, because any possible implementation will give the wrong answer.