Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them --undecidability
 decider--
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:01:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <ussf42$10ifl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usq5uq$e4sh$1@dont-email.me> <usq715$ed9g$3@dont-email.me>
 <usq8rh$etp9$1@dont-email.me> <usqb4a$1l201$32@i2pn2.org>
 <usqcts$froc$1@dont-email.me> <usqh4h$1lvbo$3@i2pn2.org>
 <usqhoj$gtih$2@dont-email.me> <usql2f$1m5uu$2@i2pn2.org>
 <usqmdi$hu9o$1@dont-email.me> <usqn3v$i33s$1@dont-email.me>
 <usqo6h$hubd$3@dont-email.me> <usqp0u$ie7v$1@dont-email.me>
 <usqq3p$iit2$1@dont-email.me> <usr6pd$1mk0f$4@i2pn2.org>
 <usr78u$on40$2@dont-email.me> <usrshs$st3i$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:01:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa13334f329e2006d1dfb90f9960e443";
	logging-data="1067509"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184Bpd9WmSnYM0EDN4Kyz0a"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FGDYftX/D2kEecz8ylmoU0Xv8hE=
In-Reply-To: <usrshs$st3i$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5322

On 3/13/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-13 03:41:18 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 3/12/2024 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/12/24 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 6:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 13/03/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 6:05 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not exactly. A pair of otherwise identical machines that
>>>>>>>>>>>> (that are contained within the above specified set)
>>>>>>>>>>>> only differ by return value will both be wrong on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same pathological input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean a pair of DIFFERENT machines. Any difference is 
>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a
>>>>>>>>>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
>>>>>>>>>> value of its decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean
>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a
>>>>>>>> corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return
>>>>>>>> value of its Boolean_TM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that
>>>>>>>> their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
>>>>>>>> same question is also proven to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody knows what the fuck you are talking about. You have to 
>>>>>>> actually explain it. The same machine always gives the same 
>>>>>>> return value on the same input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has taken me twenty years to translate my intuitions into
>>>>>> words that can possibly understood.
>>>>>
>>>>> You failed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A pair of Turing Machines that return Boolean that are identical
>>>>>> besides their return value that cannot decide some property of
>>>>>> the same input are being asked the same YES/NO question having
>>>>>> no correct YES/NO answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Formal_definition
>>>>> A Turing machine is ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩
>>>>> Show me two ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩ that are identical besides their 
>>>>> return value.
>>>>> You can't because you are talking nonsense. they don't exist.
>>>>
>>>> Turing machine descriptions that are identical finite strings
>>>> except for the the 1/0 that they write the their exact same
>>>> tape relative location.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So they aren't identical.
>>>
>>> "Identical except ..." means DIFFERENT.
>>>
>>> So you LIE
>>
>> Not at all. I did not know these details until
>   ...
> 
> To claim something as truth without knowing it is to lie.
> 
That I have acknowledged my mistakes is sufficient reason
to conclude that these mistakes were never known falsehoods
with the intent to deceive.

The current focus is this can H(D,D) always detect when its
input is calling itself with its same parameters such that
the correctly simulated D(D) would never stop running unless
aborted.

*Hypothesis*
I say that if it is detectable then a machine can detect it
and it cannot be undetectable.

If the above is true then this gives us two things:
(a) An alternative decidable criteria for the halting problem
(b) A way for every machine to correctly decide its own
undecidability on the original halting problem criteria.

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