Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar?
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 13:42:41 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <v24nv1$1h2lu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me> <v1h9eu$9faf$1@dont-email.me> <v1iqli$nsva$1@dont-email.me> <v1k0ts$iuna$1@i2pn2.org> <v1k381$14mbi$2@dont-email.me> <v1labh$kf53$1@i2pn2.org> <v1lfnq$1e7af$1@dont-email.me> <v1lh1g$kf52$4@i2pn2.org> <v1lmo1$1g1mj$1@dont-email.me> <v1luu1$lbo5$3@i2pn2.org> <v1lvuo$1i47i$1@dont-email.me> <v1m1bf$lbo5$4@i2pn2.org> <v1m2hc$1ijhr$1@dont-email.me> <v1m31m$lbo4$1@i2pn2.org> <v1m4et$1iv85$1@dont-email.me> <v1m5co$lbo4$2@i2pn2.org> <v1m71h$1jnpi$1@dont-email.me> <v1m7mh$lbo5$5@i2pn2.org> <v1mb8f$1kgpl$1@dont-email.me> <v1mkf8$lbo5$7@i2pn2.org> <v1mkmm$1q5ee$1@dont-email.me> <v1na6f$1ugl0$1@dont-email.me> <v1o67n$24f4c$1@dont-email.me> <v1q1ie$2l40t$1@dont-email.me> <v1q9fp$qb0p$1@i2pn2.org> <v1qmq8$2prs6$1@dont-email.me> <v1qouc$2qb2s$1@dont-email.me> <v1vbpd$3gbc$1@dont-email.me> <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me> <v21qdm$op3a$1@dont-email.me> <v22j1j$u8vi$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 12:42:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1042f681036333a040f7e702dbbd055b";
	logging-data="1608382"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18vuKSMNCgMIL7WhTmsez90"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:20TgToMmvTR/gZYgBlr/NFPQMrk=
Bytes: 4268

On 2024-05-15 15:06:26 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/15/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-14 14:32:26 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 5/14/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-12 15:58:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 11:34:17 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 16:26:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am working on providing an academic quality definition of this
>>>>>>>>> term.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The definition in Wikipedia is good enough.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think he means, he is working on a definition that redefines the 
>>>>>>> field to allow him to claim what he wants.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Here one can claim whatever one wants anysay.
>>>>>> In if one wants to present ones claims on some significant forum then
>>>>>> it is better to stick to usual definitions as much as possible.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sort of like his new definition of H as an "unconventional" machine 
>>>>>>> that some how both returns an answer but also keeps on running.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are systems where that is possible but unsolvable problems are
>>>>>> unsolvable even in those systems.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>> 
>>>> This notation does not work with machines that can, or have parts
>>>> that can, return a value without (or before) termination.
>>> 
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>> 
>> That notation is not any better for the purpose.
>> 
> 
> I refer to transitioning through a specific state to indicate
> a specific halt status value, for Turing Machines.

That does not satisfy the usual definition of "halt decider".
However, we could accept that as a solution to the halting problem
if one could prove that there is a Turing machine that can indicate
halting or non-halting that way for all computations.

However, it is possible to prove that every Turing machine that
indicates halting that way fails to indicate correctly at least
some computations.

-- 
Mikko