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

On 10/30/2024 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.

ZFC only resolved Russell's Paradox because it tossed out
the incoherent foundation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_set_theory
It has always been the case that halt deciders and termination
analyzers compute the mapping from their finite string inputs
to the behavior that these finite strings actually specify in
the same way that there never actually have been any sets that
contain themselves, this has always been a misconception.
That people take ordinary textbooks as infallible is blasphemy.
Textbooks are at most the best approximation of the truth at
the time. They are not infallible.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer