Sujet : Re: Halt Deciders must be computable functions --- dbush was always wrong
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 24. Mar 2025, 01:59:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vrqaom$3k9kh$1@dont-email.me>
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
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/23/2025 7:01 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:08:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
The behavior of a directly executing Turing Machine cannot be computed
because a directly executing Turing machine cannot be the input to any
computable function.
Lol. This is such a ridiculously silly objection. Of course a TM is
nothing but a finite string (or can be encoded as such). TMs are
most definitely computable - UTMs are possible.
It is enormously more nuanced than that.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdfĤ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
When we define the Peter Linz Ĥ with a UTM
that simulates a finite number of "moves"
before transitioning to Ĥ.qn then Ĥ reaches
Ĥ.qn and the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly
reach ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Halt Deciders must be computable functions --- dbush was always wrong
Re: Halt Deciders must be computable functions --- dbush was always wrong