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, 8 Nov 2024 08:39:20 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <vgl7qo$37h38$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me>
 <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org>
 <vfqsui$1jg6i$2@dont-email.me> <vft4om$44tc$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vft944$25aio$6@dont-email.me>
 <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org>
 <QU2dnTAfup30Rr_6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vfvnml$2ll12$1@dont-email.me> <vfvujg$2mcse$6@dont-email.me>
 <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me> <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg4va2$3ok87$1@dont-email.me> <vg55lv$3pnvp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg7sdl$cbfk$1@dont-email.me> <vg83vt$dri5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgcmu4$1eurt$1@dont-email.me> <vgd5vl$1hqli$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgfv31$25h28$1@dont-email.me> <vgg1qh$26126$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgi2t6$2js8i$1@dont-email.me> <vgiqgt$2nkqv$2@dont-email.me>
 <vgl0pf$37081$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 15:39:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c2fa6bf0e4c95fa4383978e96b35b7f1";
	logging-data="3392616"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18iuSgmC/ZYXnjaDfDrCyy9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vD+W0LoJKvXxMUXCY3wDtlrW4i4=
In-Reply-To: <vgl0pf$37081$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241108-6, 11/8/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5450

On 11/8/2024 6:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-11-07 16:39:57 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 11/7/2024 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-11-06 15:26:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/6/2024 8:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-11-05 13:18:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-11-03 15:13:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-02 12:24:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HHH does compute the mapping from its input DDD
>>>>>>>>>> to the actual behavior that DDD specifies and this
>>>>>>>>>> DOES INCLUDE HHH emulating itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes but not the particular mapping required by the halting 
>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes it is the particular mapping required by the halting problem.
>>>>>>>> The exact same process occurs in the Linz proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting probelm requires that every halt decider terminates.
>>>>>>> If HHH(DDD) terminates so does DDD. The halting problmen requires
>>>>>>> that if DDD terminates then HHH(DDD) accepts as halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No that is false.
>>>>>> The measure is whether a C function can possibly
>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the original problem but the question whether a particular 
>>>>> strictly
>>>>> C function will ever reach its return instruction is equally hard. 
>>>>> About
>>>>
>>>> It has always been about whether or not a finite string input
>>>> specifies a computation that reaches its final state.
>>>
>>> Not really. The original problem was not a halting problem but Turing's
>>
>> Exactly. The actual Halting Problem was called that by Davis
>> in 1952. Not the same as Turing proof.
> 
> In early times there was variation in how things were presented and what
> words were used. Post had studied the halting problem of his tag system
> much earlier but didn't call it a machine. Many other problems were also
> studied and later found to be more or less related to the halting
> problem and its variants.
> 
>> *So we are back to The Halting Problem itself*
>>
>> has always been about whether or not a finite string input
>> specifies a computation that reaches its final state.
> 
> No, it has been a collection of related problems that includes that
> particular one. 

The halting problem has always been abuut halting

> As the problems are related and equally hard it does
> not really matter which one you choose as long as you are clear
> about your choice. To argue about the meaning of words id a clear
> indcation of an intent to avoid an honest discussion.
> 

It is not the meaning of words it is the semantic
property of the finite string pair HHH/DDD.

The halting problem has always been about whether a finite
string input specifies a computation that will reach its
final halt state.

If you disagree then you must provide a complete and coherent
counter-example conclusively proving otherwise not merely
some vague reference to some other things somewhere else.

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