Sujet : Re: We finally know exactly how H1(D,D) derives a different result than H(D,D)
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 10. Mar 2024, 14:25:37
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <usk8s1$2v4mk$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-03-09 15:49:39 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/9/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-08 16:09:58 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/8/2024 9:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-08 05:23:34 +0000, Yaxley Peaks said:
With all of these extra frills, aren't you working outside the premise
of the halting problem? Like how Andre pointed out.
Yes, he is.
The halting problem concerns itself with turing machines and what you
propose is not a turing machine.
That is true. However, we can formulate similar problems and proofs
for other classes of machines.
I am working on the computability of the halting problem
(the exact same TMD / input pairs) by a slightly augmented
notion of Turing machines as elaborated below:
Olcott machines are entirely comprised of a UTM + TMD and one
extra step that any UTM could perform, append the TMD to the
end of its own tape.
An important question to answer is whether a Turing machine can
simulate your machines.
Olcott machines are entirely comprised of a UTM + TMD and one
extra step that any UTM could perform, append the TMD to the end
of its own tape.
Then a Turing machine can simulate your machine.
-- Mikko
…