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: Defining a correct halt decider
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:03:52 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <vbh1d7$19f9j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4npj$1kg8k$1@dont-email.me> <vb6i8p$39fhi$1@dont-email.me> <vb72a4$3b4ub$6@dont-email.me> <vbbn7t$8ocm$1@dont-email.me> <vbcca2$bdtb$4@dont-email.me> <vbeo35$q1bv$1@dont-email.me> <vbepoh$punj$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 10:03:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0718f94d0f30d61f4b7b5b31b7d2bfcf";
	logging-data="1359155"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WKQlzvMl8CsJCPBSJHM4X"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r/ugbSR57rQvfpH6WhH4fYW03RA=
Bytes: 3355

On 2024-09-06 11:41:05 +0000, olcott said:

> On 9/6/2024 6:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-05 13:39:14 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 9/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:17:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/3/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:06:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A correct halt decider is a Turing machine T with one accept state and 
>>>>>>> one reject state such that:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding of 
>>>>>>> Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution of a 
>>>>>>> real machine X with initial tape contents Y eventually halts, the 
>>>>>>> execution of T eventually ends up in the accept state and then stops.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding of 
>>>>>>> Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution of a 
>>>>>>> real machine X with initial tape contents Y does not eventually halt, 
>>>>>>> the execution of T eventually ends up in the reject state and then 
>>>>>>> stops.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your "definition" fails to specify "encoding". There is no standard
>>>>>> encoding of Turing machines and tape contents.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is why I made the isomorphic x86utm system.
>>>>> By failing to have such a concrete system all kinds
>>>>> of false assumptions cannot be refuted.
>>>> 
>>>> If it were isnomorphic the same false assumtipns would apply to both.
>>> 
>>> They do yet I cannot provide every single details of
>>> the source-code of the Turing machine because these
>>> details would be too overwhelming.
>>> 
>>> So instead every author makes a false assumption that
>>> is simply believed to be true with no sufficient basis
>>> to show that it isn't true.
>>> 
>>> Once I prove my point as the x86 level I show how the
>>> same thing applies to the Peter Linz proof.
>> 
>> Your recent presentations are so far from Linz' proof that they
>> look totally unrelated.
> 
> I must begin where people are so far no one even understands
> the concept of recursive emulation.

I don't know about you but most of the participants of this discussion
seem to understand recursive simulation and how it differs from
recursion.

-- 
Mikko