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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:49:22 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <vg2bni$376tr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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> <vft0hv$240qa$1@dont-email.me> <vft8hd$25aio$3@dont-email.me> <vfvn4l$2li7v$1@dont-email.me> <vfvtk5$2mcse$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 11:49:22 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f3d815f22c211ba81933ff9202fa284b";
	logging-data="3382203"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18GdSivoL11fvZJe8rj95It"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XFAb64VVgDId26inekSbv/67JOc=
Bytes: 5066

On 2024-10-31 12:36:21 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/31/2024 5:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-30 12:24:13 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 10/30/2024 5:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-29 13:56:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Textboods may mention the idea but there is not much to say about it,
>>>> only that it does not give a complete solution. Linz' proof covers
>>>> all Turing machines. A simulating halt decider that is not a Turing
>>>> machine is not interesting because there is no known way to make it.
>>> 
>>> In other words you are saying that there is no such thing as a
>>> UTM. Not a smart thing to say. embedded_H was adapted from a UTM.
>> 
>> I already said that you should not use the expression "In other wordw".
>> It is not clear what you mean by it but you boviously don't mean what
>> the phrase really means.
> 
> The only way to verify mutual understanding is to
> keep paraphrasing back and forth until there is
> mutual agreement.

No. Asking about specific words and phrases is a more efficient way.
Making false statements about another topic is not useful.

> If my paraphrase is inaccurate then you must point
> out the exact details of the inaccuracy.

What you said cannot be interpreted as a paraphrase.

-- 
Mikko