Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 10:50:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <vfr091$1k8im$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqvjs$3v4c4$15@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:50:58 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="393123f3287a9aeded778d1158c0bfd1";
	logging-data="1712726"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AESTxJk+EPE3mAquHbzvJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4GDCSsiasslGpqJ3/rteaQBEeHs=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241029-2, 10/29/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vfqvjs$3v4c4$15@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4695

On 10/29/2024 10:39 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:56:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 10/29/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-29 00:57:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/28/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> The machine being used to compute the Halting Function has taken a
>>>>>>> finite string description, the Halting Function itself always took
>>>>>>> a Turing Machine,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is incorrect. It has always been the finite string Turing
>>>>>> Machine description of a Turing machine is the input to the halt
>>>>>> decider. There are always been a distinction between the abstraction
>>>>>> and the encoding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, read the problem you have quoted in the past.
>>>>>
>>>> Ultimately I trust Linz the most on this:
>>>>
>>>> the problem is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an
>>>> input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration qow,
>>>> perform a computation that eventually halts?
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>> Linz also makes sure to ignore that the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly
>>>> simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach either ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>>>> because like everyone else he rejects simulation out of hand:
>>>> We cannot find the answer by simulating the action of M on w,
>>>> say by performing it on a universal Turing machine, because there is
>>>> no limit on the length of the computation.
>>>
>>> That statement does not fully reject simulation but is correct in the
>>> observation that non-halting cannot be determied in finite time by a
>>> complete simulation so someting else is needed instead of or in
>>> addition to a partial simulation. Linz does include simulationg Turing
>>> machines in his proof that no Turing machine is a halt decider.
>>>
>> To the best of my knowledge no one besides me ever came up with the idea
>> of making a simulating halt decider / emulating termination analyzer.
> That's very bad knowledge.
> 
>> Every sufficiently competent and honest person agrees that I am correct.
> You live in a very sad world.
> 
>> Insufficiently competent or dishonest people can not show any actual
>> error in my work. They generally incorrectly paraphrase my work and then
>> form a rebuttal to the incorrect paraphrase. This is known as the
>> strawman deception.
> This is a very easy excuse.
> 

That conclusively proves to be true on the basis of
the exact works of the actual rebuttals. Almost every
rebuttal is based on an incorrect paraphrase of what
I said. This is a verified fact. People that only glance
at my words before spouting off a canned rebuttal will
never notice this.

 > This is a very easy excuse.
Is such a canned rebuttal.

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