On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:"effectively calculable" was the original term-of-the-artOn 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way solution. u have something that's executable for sure, and that is a definite improvement over total undecidability.On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:>On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:>On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:>On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:>
[...]not my argument u fucking useless boomer>
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
>
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer
>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
>
>
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the head, when that instruction is called:
>
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
>
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation, and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting problem.
>
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called.
>
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
>
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his original paper on computable numbers:
>
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36]
>
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
>
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
>
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
>
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
>
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer after putting 1-3 on the tape.
>
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU DORK
>
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
>
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner.
Now it is computable function.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
/effectively compute/ has no term-of-the-art meaning.
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and* epistemically useful for that purpose.--
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting function irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability that you are proposing.
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.