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: Defining a correct halt decider
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 17:46:14 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <vbkdbm$1v535$2@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> <vbkanr$1u1js$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2024 16:46:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd9d2cc639f13179d78eef7a9cb98700";
	logging-data="2069605"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7wQmlPXn9qPyVZTJwfdqJ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZDEhcNECJiYy2+j1f5HzK+CsZhg=
Bytes: 4485

On 2024-09-08 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

Apparently you don't.

-- 
Mikko