Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vbkanr$1u1js$7@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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct halt decider
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 09:01:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <vbkanr$1u1js$7@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>
 <vbhlts$1c7u5$9@dont-email.me> <vbjqmq$1sjfe$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2024 16:01:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="807c5ae02fef01679b819cece75165da";
	logging-data="2033276"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mgNIqO8prcw46JYMv3rzG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JYDAeJT88cjB3ghbxWtFihQ4zSU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbjqmq$1sjfe$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4541

On 9/8/2024 4:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-09-07 13:54:04 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Recursion is a fairly simple concept but do you understand what
> "infinite" means?
> 

Unless the outer directly executed HHH aborts its
emulation of DDD it is infinite recursive emulation.

Whether or not the outer directly executed HHH aborts
its emulation DDD never reaches its "return" instruction
final halt state thus cannot possibly halt.


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