Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 10/29/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:ZFC only resolved Russell's Paradox because it tossed outOn 10/29/2024 10:39 AM, joes wrote:And your paraphrase of the problem makes your "rebuttal" to the halting proof must a lie.Am Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:56:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 10/29/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:That's very bad knowledge.On 2024-10-29 00:57:30 +0000, olcott said:To the best of my knowledge no one besides me ever came up with the ideaOn 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/28/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:Ultimately I trust Linz the most on this:On 10/28/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>The machine being used to compute the Halting Function has taken aThat is incorrect. It has always been the finite string Turing
finite string description, the Halting Function itself always took
a Turing Machine,
>
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.
>
>
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.
>
of making a simulating halt decider / emulating termination analyzer.
>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 actualThis is a very easy excuse.
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.
>
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.
>
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.