Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:17:32 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <vfs1fc$2ci0$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 01:17:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="78400"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5237
Lines: 89

On 10/29/24 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Which just shows the utter inadequacy of you knowledge, as using 
simulation as a method of deciding halting was a well known technique 
back in the days when I was in School in the 70s.

One standard method discussed to detect infinite loops in a program was 
to run two simulators for the machine description, one doing two steps 
to the others one. If ever the two simulation reach an identical state, 
the you know you have entered an infinite loop, that will just continue 
to repeat.

> 
> Every sufficiently competent and honest person agrees that I am correct.
> 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.

Nope, the fact that you have been PROVEN wrong, and you don't understand 
that just shows how utterly ignorant and stupid you are.,

> 
> All of the rebuttals of my HHH/DDD have disagreeing with the semantics
> of the x86 language as their basis. The may not be sufficiently
> competent in the x86 language to see this.

Nope, YOU disagred with the semantcis of the x86 language, some how 
thinking that a "call HHH" instruction will cause the x86 CPU to emulate 
the code specified in the AX register, rather than running the code of HHH.
> 
> 
> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
> 
> When you click on the link and try to explain how HHH must
> be wrong when it reports that DDD does not terminate because
> DDD does terminate ChatGPT will explain your mistake to you.
>

Just shows you don't read the messages, or maybe you have a brainwashed 
blocking installed, as I posted a comment to that to which Chat GPT 
admitted that DDD does halt, and HHH is wrong to say it isn't