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: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 06:46:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <vg53e2$3or7a$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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> <vg2bni$376tr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2h5p$37lpn$7@dont-email.me> <vg4qfg$3nqlg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:46:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f24840444c7ed29233b33314df4ac42c";
	logging-data="3960042"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+isJgCVpMHoR7WeEmBhmJU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KKsH2oy5XPe0kXaE+lZXSVhBeW8=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241102-0, 11/1/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vg4qfg$3nqlg$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6462

On 11/2/2024 4:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-11-01 12:22:17 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 11/1/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> A less effective way. Rounds of paraphrase resolve to
>> mutual understanding.
> 
> What makes you tink so? I have seen no convergence that way.
> 

*That is the way that communication inherently works*
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Common_components_of_models_of_communication.svg/1024px-Common_components_of_models_of_communication.svg.png

>> Anything else may never resolve.
> 
> Much depends on finding the right questions.
> 
>>>> 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.
>>
>> In the above case you may be correct.
> 


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