Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 27. May 2024, 04:30:07
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v30r7f$26571$5@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/26/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
   Ĥ copies its own Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩
  then invokes embedded_H that simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ with ⟨Ĥ⟩ as input.
 It is an easily verified fact that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by
embedded_H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state of
⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite sequence of steps such as Googolplex ^ Googolplex
number of steps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex
So, it can verify that if H / embedded_H was programmed not to halt it simulation, then the H^ built on that H will be non-halting, but that doesn't say anything about the DIFFERENT H^ built on an H that does abort its simulation and returns 0.
Remember, each H you start with becomes a SEPERATE problem with a SEPARATE input H^, and the results of one input say nothing about the results of other inputs.
EVERY H^, built on an H that answer qn for H (H^) (H^) will, when simulated for enough steps, reach a final state.
Your claim is the equivalent of looking at a 10-story office building when you are studing the behavior of cats.

 UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT A UTM CANNOT POSSIBLY BE ADAPTED TO COUNT
THE NUMBER OF STEPS AND THEN STOP I AM CORRECT AND YOU ARE DISHONEST
As I said, it can be, it just isn't a UTM any more.
Just like if you take an electric car and change the engine to be an internal combusion engine, you no longer have an Electric car.

 *Your dishonest dodge strawman deception is not me lying*
*Your dishonest dodge strawman deception is not me lying*
*Your dishonest dodge strawman deception is not me lying*
 UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT A UTM CANNOT POSSIBLY BE ADAPTED TO COUNT
THE NUMBER OF STEPS AND THEN STOP I AM CORRECT AND YOU ARE DISHONEST
 
As I said, it just isn't a UTM any more, and thus its partial simulation doesn't say anything about the input not halting, or that the correct simulation of the input would be non-halting.
Only that its partial simulation didn't YET reach a halting state.
You are just proving that you have no understanding of the field that you are talking about.
H can show that it didn't reach a final state.
It can't show that a correct simulation of its input would not reach a final state, as changing H / embedded_H doesn't change the H^ that was given to the origianl H, so the "new H" will get that same input for the arguement about what H could have done if it was different, as the question is still about the input that the original H was actually given.
And, there is no way to build an H^ whoes correct description will ask about the template that you tried to construct in your POOP theory, so you are stuck with looking at the set of posible H's all getting the H^ that was built on the original H that you need to show was correct. Some of your H's WILL beable to reach the final state, so yor claim is false.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
23 May 24 * Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?186olcott
24 May 24 +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?23Richard Damon
24 May 24 i+* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?10olcott
24 May 24 ii`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?9Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?8olcott
24 May 24 ii  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?7Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii   `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?6olcott
24 May 24 ii    `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?5Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii     `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?4olcott
24 May 24 ii      `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?3Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii       `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2olcott
25 May 24 ii        `- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
24 May 24 i`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?12Fred. Zwarts
24 May 24 i +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?5Richard Damon
24 May 24 i i`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?4olcott
24 May 24 i i `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?3Richard Damon
24 May 24 i i  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2olcott
25 May 24 i i   `- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
24 May 24 i `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?6olcott
24 May 24 i  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?5Richard Damon
24 May 24 i   `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?4olcott
24 May 24 i    `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?3Richard Damon
24 May 24 i     `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2olcott
25 May 24 i      `- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
24 May 24 +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?154Fred. Zwarts
24 May 24 i`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?153olcott
24 May 24 i `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?152Richard Damon
24 May 24 i  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?151olcott
24 May 24 i   `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?150Richard Damon
24 May 24 i    `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?149olcott
25 May 24 i     +- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
25 May 24 i     `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?147olcott
25 May 24 i      `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?146Richard Damon
25 May 24 i       `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?145olcott
25 May 24 i        `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?144Richard Damon
25 May 24 i         `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?143olcott
25 May 24 i          +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?140Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i`* D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06139olcott
25 May 24 i          i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06138Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06137olcott
25 May 24 i          i   +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06134Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i   i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06133olcott
25 May 24 i          i   i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06132Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i   i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06131olcott
25 May 24 i          i   i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06130Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i   i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06129olcott
25 May 24 i          i   i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06128Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 066olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i      i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 065Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 064olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i      i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 063Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i      i    `- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06121olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06120Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06119olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06118Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06117olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06116Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06115olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06114Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06113olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i               `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06112Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                i`- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06109olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06108Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 066olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 065Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i i`- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i  `- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?101olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?100Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?99olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?98Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                      `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?97olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                       `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?96Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                        `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---95olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                         `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---94Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                          `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---93olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                           `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---92Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                            +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof4olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                            i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof3Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                            i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof2olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                            i  `- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof1Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                            `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz87olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                             `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz86Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                              `* A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩85olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                               `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩84Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩83olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                 `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩82Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  +* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩4olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  i`* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩3Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  i `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩2olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  i  `- Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩1Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩77olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   +* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩3Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   i`* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩2olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   i `- Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩1Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩73olcott
25 May 24 i          i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062Alan Mackenzie
26 May 24 i          `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2Fred. Zwarts
24 May 24 `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?8Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal