Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:25:51 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v48u5v$ukf3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me> <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me> <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me> <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me> <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me> <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3p4ka$sk6h$1@dont-email.me> <v3pp7p$v133$8@dont-email.me> <v3s27e$1f9kd$1@dont-email.me> <v3sf1n$1gra7$11@dont-email.me> <v3sjo9$1ialb$1@dont-email.me> <v3skoo$1iedv$1@dont-email.me> <v3u9ej$1v7rn$1@dont-email.me> <v3v6i7$23l33$1@dont-email.me> <v3vse5$3ao52$5@i2pn2.org> <v401dt$287qb$8@dont-email.me> <v40ufq$2gjsq$1@dont-email.me> <v41kse$2jqdk$9@dont-email.me> <v43q7v$3bkup$1@dont-email.me> <v44cgt$3harn$5@dont-email.me> <v44gmc$3jao9$1@dont-email.me> <v44k3j$3jnc8$4@dont-email.me> <v46bss$9ibv$1@dont-email.me> <v475ps$ggn5$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:25:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6354b1c58f689f5eeabcf22981df2d90";
	logging-data="1004003"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+m806EEox1tRbCgl76DRhx"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3CojYwSUxFS5yvqA5urxiMZRiTs=
Bytes: 5024

On 2024-06-10 15:23:40 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/10/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-09 16:09:23 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 6/9/2024 10:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-09 13:59:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-08 13:04:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-07 22:26:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 4:00 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:47:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-06 15:31:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 10:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-06 13:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-05 13:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-04 18:02:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider cannot report on what the behavior of a
>>>>>>>>>>> non-terminating input actually is because this would take forever.
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. Didn't you say it is allowed to abort?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> H is not allowed to report on any computation containing its actual self
>>>>>>>>>>> because Turing machines can only take finite string inputs thus cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> take Turing machines as inputs.
>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. It can take other machines just fine. It doesn't know about
>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> No actual Turing machine can be the input to any other actual
>>>>>>>>> Turing machine. Turing machines only take finite string inputs.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Any finite string can be an input to some Turing machine.
>>>>>>>> Can you prove that a Turing machine is not a finite string?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> By definition Turing Machines are not finite strings in the
>>>>>>> conventional model. In my x86utm model of computation x86
>>>>>>> machine language <is> the input to another function written
>>>>>>> in the x86 language.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The definition does not say "Turing machine is not a finite string".
>>>>> 
>>>>> The definition of puppy does not say it is not a fifteen
>>>>> story office building.
>>>> 
>>>> Therefore you must use a different kind of argumentation if you want
>>>> to claim that a Turing machine is not a finite string.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is common knowledge (that you lack) that a Turing machine
>>> <is not> a finite string. It is also common knowledge that
>>> finite strings can describe Turing machines.
>> 
>> A Turing machine is a term of art that means what its definition says.
>> There are several commonly accepted definitions with unimportant
>> differences. You may pick whichever you want as your basis of your
>> proof that a Turing machine is not a finite string.
> 
> It is common knowledge that a Turing machine itself is not
> a finite string. I will not engage your head game.

Then point where a textbook says that a Turing machine itself is not
a finite string. If you cannot find that statement in a textbook it
is not a common knowledge.

-- 
Mikko