Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct halt decider
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 08:54:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <vbhlts$1c7u5$9@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> <vbh1d7$19f9j$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 15:54:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fc36cd944b9fa7fa30157002795d809b";
	logging-data="1449925"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Ne+JzcrMHyTw2EoYjpvRr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:187fqV+JoAOxDOF1pf4Wdggkbeo=
In-Reply-To: <vbh1d7$19f9j$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3887

On 9/7/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Both Fred and Joes think that you can just wait for it
to end on its own. Neither one of them ever answered
when I asked them: Do you know what infinite recursion is?

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