Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 10/29/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/29/2024 10:39 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:56:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

That's very bad knowledge.
>

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

You live in a very sad world.
>

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.

This is a very easy excuse.
>

 That conclusively proves to be true on the basis of
the exact works of the actual rebuttals. Almost every
rebuttal is based on an incorrect paraphrase of what
I said. This is a verified fact. People that only glance
at my words before spouting off a canned rebuttal will
never notice this.
  > This is a very easy excuse.
Is such a canned rebuttal.
 

And your paraphrase of the problem makes your "rebuttal" to the halting proof must a lie.
All you have proved is that that you are totally ignorant of what you are talking about, and that you don't mind lying about it.