Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v3mjup$bu14$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 11:40:57 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 74 Message-ID: <v3mjup$bu14$1@dont-email.me> References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org> <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org> <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org> <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de> <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me> <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org> <v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me> <v38g31$2foi0$11@i2pn2.org> <v38gi5$1bndb$3@dont-email.me> <v38ici$2fohv$2@i2pn2.org> <v38j17$1c8ir$2@dont-email.me> <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org> <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me> <v39agi$1jiql$1@dont-email.me> <v39v3h$1mtd9$5@dont-email.me> <v3b9kj$2im02$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bale$222n5$1@dont-email.me> <v3c1qo$25d0v$1@dont-email.me> <v3cpdu$297ao$3@dont-email.me> <v3k4ec$3ri9o$1@dont-email.me> <v3kfmt$3t5s5$9@dont-email.me> <v3kl6m$3ueeo$1@dont-email.me> <v3l1ib$5d3$6@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 10:40:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dce6fda481f9f7f7aa278ce7b31b5172"; logging-data="391204"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+i5/gE7sn+pvz5jAxd7skG" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:rHbWDWWohggn24KDBF4VnPjyYFM= Bytes: 4436 On 2024-06-03 18:20:59 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/3/2024 9:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-03 13:16:12 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/3/2024 5:03 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-05-31 15:13:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 5/31/2024 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-05-31 01:54:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/30/2024 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/30/24 9:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2024 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-30 01:15:21 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> x <is> a finite string Turing machine description that SPECIFIES >>>>>>>>>>> behavior. The term: "representing" is inaccurate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, x is a description of the Turing machine that specifies the behaviour >>>>>>>>>> that H is required to report. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is what I said. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note, the string doesn't DIRECTLY specify behavior, but only indirectly >>>>>>>> as a description/representation of the Turing Mach >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The string directly SPECIFIES behavior to a UTM or to >>>>>>> any TM based on a UTM. >>>>>> >>>>>> An UTM interpretes the string as a specification of behaviour >>>>> >>>>> YES, exactly !!! >>>>> >>>>>> and another Turing machine may interprete likewise. But in a >>>>>> different context the interpretation is different. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> >>>>> When embedded_H <is> a UTM or <is> a halting computation based on a >>>>> UTM then the ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ input to embedded_H SPECIFIES that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly >>>>> simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final >>>>> state at ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩. >>>> >>>> There is no requirement to follow the pecifications by embedded_H. >>> >>> >>> In other words embedded_H can simply play bingo and never halt and >>> still correctly decide the halt status of its input? >> >> Not of the input text but of the machine and input that the text >> describes. The input to H contains enough information that the >> machine can be constructed and run with the input. If the prediction >> by H differs from the actual execution of the machine the prediction >> is wrong and H is not a halt decider. >> > > > int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } > sum(2,3) cannot return the sum of 5 + 6. > > DD correctly simulated by HH does have provably > different behavior than DD(DD) so HH is is not > allowed to report on the behavior of DD(DD). Show the proof (or a pointer to the beginning of the proof). -- Mikko