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

On 11/1/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-31 12:50:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/31/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-29 14:35:34 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
*That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
*correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
*or lack of technical competence*
>
DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.

>
- irrelevant

>
100% perfectly relevant within the philosophy of computation

>
Probably but not to anything quoted above.
>

*THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD*
[The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---]
>

- couterfactual

>

You can baselessly claim that verified facts are counter-factual
you cannot show this.

>
Your statement was about a situation where "people fail to agree with
this and also fail to correctly point out any error". But that situation
has not happened as people have identified your errors (perhaps not all
but at least sufficiently many).
>

 Inconsistent with the currently received view is
certainly not the slightest trace of any error when
examined within the philosophy of computation.
 It has always seemed quite ridiculous to me that everyone
here consistently construes the currently received view
as inherently infallible. They call me stupid and ignorant
for not accepting the currently received view as inherently
infallible.
 

Do you even know what the Philosophy of Computation (ie Computational Philosophy) is?
You don't seem to understand that in a formal logic system, the "Received View", if by that you mean following the rules define by the system, *IS* inherently infallible IN THAT SYSTEM.
The rule of Naive Set Theory that allowed sets to contain themselves was an infallible truth of Naive Set Theory. It was a rule that showed that the system was broken, but it was an infallible rule in the Theory.
To say a definition is "wrong" in a formal system is just a misuse of the language, because it CAN'T be wrong in the system, only make the system inconsistant.
You can't "change" the rule, because once it is part of it, it is part of it, all you can do is back up to some prior system it was built on, and build a new system.
Since you have refused to actually do the work of that, you are just proving that you are just a liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.
Maybe outside formal system, you can argue about "changing" the rules but that is only because outside formal system, the meaning of "truth" gets more nebulous and interpretive.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity and ignorance of what you talk about.