Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Working_out_the_details_of_the_steps_of_=C4=A4=2EH_?=
 =?UTF-8?B?4p+oxKTin6kg4p+oxKTin6kgPMSkPiDiiqIqIMSkLkhxbg==?=
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:54:57 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <usgfhh$20e93$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usd5ot$a7f$1@reader1.panix.com> <usesk9$1lk0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <usfclk$1p8cg$2@dont-email.me> <MmIGN.375143$vFZa.293337@fx13.iad>
 <usfkcd$1rdpp$2@dont-email.me> <9YIGN.461274$c3Ea.142857@fx10.iad>
 <usfo8t$1s1nb$4@dont-email.me> <usfsfn$18eqv$4@i2pn2.org>
 <usg097$1trf3$1@dont-email.me> <usg1kc$18jtf$1@i2pn2.org>
 <usg3v4$1uh5a$1@dont-email.me> <usg70f$18p2b$1@i2pn2.org>
 <usgac0$1vlpm$1@dont-email.me> <usgddc$18p2c$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 01:54:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7bba1e21ad186023a2af4b4bf0f27e98";
	logging-data="2111779"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19GcMFGw8kCAQqNemHUgZdq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lpIwcLz/ojSdADxi1wKxJ/Yh7Rc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usgddc$18p2c$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7113

On 3/8/2024 7:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/8/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/8/2024 5:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/8/24 2:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2024 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/24 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2024 2:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/24 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2024 12:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/24 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2024 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2024 5:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-07 19:49:49 +0000, Dan Cross said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is it?  The olcott machine is a device that never 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates infinite amounts of nonsense.  As a perpetual 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device with no discernable input and unbounded output, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believed that it violates the laws of thermodynamics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The olcott machine uses a hidden input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not hidden. The master UTM of Olcott machines simply
>>>>>>>>>>>> appends the TMD to the end of the simulated TMD's tape.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only those machines that need to see if themselves are
>>>>>>>>>>>> called in recursive simulation use this optional input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which means they ADMIT they are doing a different computation 
>>>>>>>>>>> then the Turing Machine they are derived from.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, there can not be an Olcott Machine that matches the 
>>>>>>>>>>> signature of a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And thus, you prove you have created another worthless field.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Olcott machines that ignore this extra input compute the exact
>>>>>>>>>> same set of functions that Turing machines compute.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Olcott machines can do something that no Turing machine can
>>>>>>>>>> possibly do correctly determine that they themselves are
>>>>>>>>>> called in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have PROVED (by your definition of an Olcott Machine) that 
>>>>>>>>> ANYTHING an Olcott machine can do, there exists a Turing 
>>>>>>>>> Machine that does the same thing.
>>>>>>>> There is no conventional Turing machine that can possibly
>>>>>>>> know that it is about to simulate a copy of itself in
>>>>>>>> recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can know just as well as your Olcott machines, which 
>>>>>>> apparently can only tell it the recusion is done by that EXACT 
>>>>>>> same machine using the same description
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How it this?
>>>>>> Conventional Turing machines do not generally have access to their
>>>>>> own machine description and generally cannot even know that they
>>>>>> are being provided with their own machine description unless they
>>>>>> are Olcott machines where this is anchored in their fundamental
>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if the mapping includes the description, it can be given to it.
>>>>
>>>> I am only going to respond to this one thread
>>>> (until I complete my design)
>>>> and will stop responding to this one too if you don't provide
>>>> very well thought out rebuttals or replies.
>>>
>>> Suit yourself. YOU are the one on a time limit and trying to develope 
>>> something "useful".
>>
>> It should not take very long to figure the details steps
>> of what H ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ <H> would do.
> 
> Right, but
> 
> H (H) (H) <H> is asking what
> H (H) <H> will do which is asking about what
> H <H> will do, which is asking about the Halting Property of a 
> no-description, which will be defined by the fine details of your rules, 
> but will definitely Halt
> So even without doing any aborting, the last machine halts, and thus the 
> whole chain will reach a final state of qy.
> 
> Thus, what it SHOULD do is not abort, finish its simulation and thus 
> report Halting.
> 
> Which sort of goes against your initial plan.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> If a machine is given its own description unless the fundamental
>>>> architecture of the system guarantees that this is its true
>>>> description then the machine cannot rely on this being its own
>>>> description.
>>>
>>> Right, so copies of a machine embedded in another machine can not get 
>>> that guarantee, so you idea fails.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <Ĥ> can definitely verify that it is about to
>> simulate a copy of its own machine description with a copy of its own
>> machine description.
> 
> Yes, but the issue is that isn't what will happen in the pathological 
> program, so shouldn't be your focus.

H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <H> must report on what happens in the pathological program.
When we specify how the pathological program will transition to Ĥ.Hqn
then we know what H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <H> will see and how it will report.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer