Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:35:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f8e00b632afbcbfec874c9c2dedd85f16c299d6b@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> <vft0hv$240qa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vft8hd$25aio$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:35:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="215954"; 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: <vft8hd$25aio$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5060
Lines: 83

On 10/30/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2024 5:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-29 13:56:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 10/29/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-29 00:57:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/28/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> The machine being used to compute the Halting Function has taken 
>>>>>>>> a finite string description, the Halting Function itself always 
>>>>>>>> took a Turing Machine,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is incorrect. It has always been the finite string Turing 
>>>>>>> Machine
>>>>>>> description of a Turing machine is the input to the halt decider.
>>>>>>> There are always been a distinction between the abstraction and the
>>>>>>> encoding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, read the problem you have quoted in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ultimately I trust Linz the most on this:
>>>>>
>>>>> the problem is: given the description of a Turing machine
>>>>> M and an input w, does M, when started in the initial
>>>>> configuration qow, perform a computation that eventually halts?
>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> Linz also makes sure to ignore that the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>> either ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ because like everyone else he rejects
>>>>> simulation out of hand:
>>>>>
>>>>> We cannot find the answer by simulating the action of M on w,
>>>>> say by performing it on a universal Turing machine, because
>>>>> there is no limit on the length of the computation.
>>>>
>>>> That statement does not fully reject simulation but is correct in
>>>> the observation that non-halting cannot be determied in finite time
>>>> by a complete simulation so someting else is needed instead of or
>>>> in addition to a partial simulation. Linz does include simulationg
>>>> Turing machines in his proof that no Turing machine is a halt decider.
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge no one besides me ever came up with the
>>> idea of making a simulating halt decider / emulating termination
>>> analyzer.
>>
>> Textboods may mention the idea but there is not much to say about it,
>> only that it does not give a complete solution. Linz' proof covers
>> all Turing machines. A simulating halt decider that is not a Turing
>> machine is not interesting because there is no known way to make it.
>>
> 
> In other words you are saying that there is no such thing as a
> UTM. Not a smart thing to say. embedded_H was adapted from a UTM.

And thus is no longer a UTM, so doesnt have the [properties of  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
> 
> embedded_H does correctly determine the halt status of the
> Linz ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when embedded_H computes the mapping from its
> finite string input to the behavior this finite string actually
> specifies.
> 
> 

Nope, since the "Halt Status" of the machine represented by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is 
BY DEFININTION the behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩, which halts since you admit that 
embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ -> Ĥ.qn and thus so does  Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

You are just proving your utter stupidity.

Remember, you don't get to change the meaning of the words of the 
problem you claim to be doing, no matter how much you want to.