Re: Defining a correct halt decider

Op 07.sep.2024 om 15:54 schreef olcott:

On 9/7/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-06 11:41:05 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/6/2024 6:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-05 13:39:14 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:17:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/3/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 16:06:11 +0000, olcott said:
>

A correct halt decider is a Turing machine T with one accept state and one reject state such that:
>
If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding of Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution of a real machine X with initial tape contents Y eventually halts, the execution of T eventually ends up in the accept state and then stops.
>
If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding of Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution of a real machine X with initial tape contents Y does not eventually halt, the execution of T eventually ends up in the reject state and then stops.

>
Your "definition" fails to specify "encoding". There is no standard
encoding of Turing machines and tape contents.

>
That is why I made the isomorphic x86utm system.
By failing to have such a concrete system all kinds
of false assumptions cannot be refuted.

>
If it were isnomorphic the same false assumtipns would apply to both.

>
They do yet I cannot provide every single details of
the source-code of the Turing machine because these
details would be too overwhelming.
>
So instead every author makes a false assumption that
is simply believed to be true with no sufficient basis
to show that it isn't true.
>
Once I prove my point as the x86 level I show how the
same thing applies to the Peter Linz proof.

>
Your recent presentations are so far from Linz' proof that they
look totally unrelated.

>
I must begin where people are so far no one even understands
the concept of recursive emulation.

>
I don't know about you but most of the participants of this discussion
seem to understand recursive simulation and how it differs from
recursion.
>

 Both Fred and Joes think that you can just wait for it
to end on its own. Neither one of them ever answered
when I asked them: Do you know what infinite recursion is?
 

Olcott is fighting windmills, like Don Quixote. I never said that.
I perfectly know what infinite recursion is, but that is irrelevant, because there is no infinite recursion: HHH aborts after two cycles.
Olcott seems to think that two equals infinite.
Olcott keeps dreaming of the HHH that does not abort. So, each times he comes back to irrelevant subjects, such as infinite recursion, infinite loop and the simulating HHH waiting for the simulated HHH.
Olcott has such bad processing of the English language that he thinks that I suggest that it would help if HHH would wait.
No, again, there is no way to fix HHH. No matter how clever HHH is modified, HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end.
I wonder how many times it must be repeated before he understands that I do not suggest to change HHH. HHH aborts too soon, but there is no way to fix it.