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

On 11/2/24 7:30 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/2/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-01 12:03:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/1/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-31 23:43:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:

On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
answering.

    I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.

Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron or a liar
I may politely pretend to believe.

>
     It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these ways!
Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He is quite
often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or similar,
but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student in terms
of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] believing that he
has a unique insight.

>
When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>
When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
the current received view of the theory of computation
is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
viewed as incorrect.

>
So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing you might come up with has any bearing on the original halting problem because you are working in a new framework?

>
I am admitting one of two things:
(1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
actual input finite string.

>
The finite strings specifying the behaviour are not a part
of the halting problem. Any solution is required to contain
encoding rules for the creation of those strings.

>
Sure they are.

>
It is of course possible to present the problem in either way without
changing anything important. The most common way is to state that the
decider shall use descriptions of the Turing machine and the input
but the encoding rules are not specified. You can present the problem
with specific encoding rules or stating that the encoding of a specific
UTM shall be used. Doing so reduces the space of possible solutions but
does not affect the solvability.
>
So the most common presentation is that encoding rules are a part of
the solution but including them in the problem does not make a significant
difference.
>

(2) I am resolving the halting problem in a way that is
comparable to the way that ZFC resolved Russell's Paradox.

>
Problems shall be solved, not resolved. The expression "resolving
the halting problem" does not mean anything because the types of
the words are not compatible. A paradox is a different type so
it can be resolved.

>
It is iffy to say that ZFC solved Russell's Paradox because
it is not solving the original problem it is redefining the
basis of the problem.

>
Then don't say so. It would be better to say that ZFC (and before
it ZF and Z) avoids Russell's paradox.
>

 It really is not even any change to the view of deciders to
know that they compute the mapping from their finite string
input to their own accept or reject state on the basis of a
semantic or syntactic property of this string.

But the problem is that not all semantic properties are computable.

 My view does seems to be a change to how this semantic property
is string understood when applied to the halting problem proof.

What your view does is limit the domain of semantic properties to that which is computable.

 Everyone here seems to think that the semantic property of this
finite string is not the actual behavior that this finite string
actually specifies.

No, the problem is that the semathic property you want to talk about, Halting, isn't defined in a way that is computabile, but is based on a possibly inifinite set of transformation steps. (The UTM simulation of that input, which can take infinite steps if the input prepresents something non-halting).

 Instead of the actual behavior they construe it as the idealized
behavior that would occur if DDD was not calling its own
termination analyzer.
 

No, the problem is that you don't understand that by the current definitions, the actual behavior *IS* the idealized behavior, as no other behavior is defined.
The problem is you want to try to redefine how to define behavior, but the behavior in question can't be defined by your rules, and as I understand what you are trying to get to, becomes a system that doesn't actually have a definition of the behavior of some programs, and thus needs to exclude those programs, and thus becomes less than Turing Complete to be able to exclude those programs, or becomes inconsistent, as different paths of processing from the same set of facts can give you contradictory results.
Sorry, your problem is you just seem incapable of seeing where you are going because you have blinded yourself to the truth.