Path: ...!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: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:26:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vg2hei$37lpn$8@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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>
 <vfqrro$1jg6i$1@dont-email.me> <vfvnbk$2lj5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvudo$2mcse$5@dont-email.me> <vg2c7p$379h1$1@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 13:26:59 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c99c96db3ca54ad7ebeb53cde955872b";
	logging-data="3397431"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/nzJwJ5LOI7gHIW/P/zWZP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ntu85paxkC2wjYX/mCSYCQz2o88=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vg2c7p$379h1$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241101-2, 11/1/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 5435

On 11/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-10-31 12:50:00 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 10/31/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-29 14:35:34 +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.
>>>>
>>>> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
>>>> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
>>>> *or lack of technical competence*
>>>>
>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
>>>> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
>>>
>>> - irrelevant
>>
>> 100% perfectly relevant within the philosophy of computation
> 
> Probably but not to anything quoted above.
> 
>> *THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD*
>> [The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new 
>> basis ---]
>>
>>> - couterfactual
> 
>> You can baselessly claim that verified facts are counter-factual
>> you cannot show this.
> 
> Your statement was about a situation where "people fail to agree with
> this and also fail to correctly point out any error". But that situation
> has not happened as people have identified your errors (perhaps not all
> but at least sufficiently many).
> 

Inconsistent with the currently received view is
certainly not the slightest trace of any error when
examined within the philosophy of computation.

It has always seemed quite ridiculous to me that everyone
here consistently construes the currently received view
as inherently infallible. They call me stupid and ignorant
for not accepting the currently received view as inherently
infallible.

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