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

On 10/30/24 8:46 AM, olcott wrote:

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

So?
And then they did the work to show their new theory worked.
IF you want to create a new logic system, go ahead and do it, and start at the beginning,
 From everything I have seen, you are just not up to that task, but I an willing to be proved wrong on that. But you need to produce in fact, what you claim without proof,

 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.

The TRY to compute the mapping.
The DEFINITION of the MAPPING isn't based on a computation, but on the mathemtatical function.
IF you want to try to outlaw your "computations" from being able to be given an input based on them, try to formulate it so that string can not be made.

 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.
 

No, it isn't the textbooks that are "infallible", it is that the systems they define are the systems they define.
If you want a different system, do the work to define it, as stop being illogical and trying to use the rules of a system you claim is broken.
Note Z-F didn't just take Naive Set Theory and ban sets containing themselves, they built a new system from the ground up and showed how it works.
You, have just been showing you don't understand how to do that, and thus your ideas are just WORTHLESS to anyone, even yourself, as no one can know what they actually do.