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

On 10/29/24 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

Which just shows the utter inadequacy of you knowledge, as using simulation as a method of deciding halting was a well known technique back in the days when I was in School in the 70s.
One standard method discussed to detect infinite loops in a program was to run two simulators for the machine description, one doing two steps to the others one. If ever the two simulation reach an identical state, the you know you have entered an infinite loop, that will just continue to repeat.

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

Nope, the fact that you have been PROVEN wrong, and you don't understand that just shows how utterly ignorant and stupid you are.,

 All of the rebuttals of my HHH/DDD have disagreeing with the semantics
of the x86 language as their basis. The may not be sufficiently
competent in the x86 language to see this.

Nope, YOU disagred with the semantcis of the x86 language, some how thinking that a "call HHH" instruction will cause the x86 CPU to emulate the code specified in the AX register, rather than running the code of HHH.

  https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
 When you click on the link and try to explain how HHH must
be wrong when it reports that DDD does not terminate because
DDD does terminate ChatGPT will explain your mistake to you.
>

Just shows you don't read the messages, or maybe you have a brainwashed blocking installed, as I posted a comment to that to which Chat GPT admitted that DDD does halt, and HHH is wrong to say it isn't