Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 3/10/24 5:32 PM, olcott wrote:The key input (the machines own address) is not hiddenOn 3/10/2024 2:16 PM, immibis wrote:Right, but it also means that since the dfference is because of a "Hidden" input none of them qualify as a Halt Decider.On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:>On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:>On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:>ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound.>
So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsoundBoth H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:>
(a) Their input halts H.qy
(b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
relationship to itself H.qn.
But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>
expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real Turing machines?
>I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES>
when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO, so you haven't solved it
All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
I noticed that you gave up on Olcott machines and now you are back to your old bullshit ways of pretending that the same machine can produce two different execution traces on the same input. Why don't you show us an execution trace where that happens? Both traces must show the first instruction that is different in both traces and I recommend showing 20 more instructions after that, but you can abort one after that time, if it doesn't halt, to prevent the trace getting infinitely long.
Turing Machines and Olcott machines cannot properly implement
H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that know their own machine address.
>
My C code proves these two have different behavior:
(a) H1(D,D) + H1_machine_address
(b) H(D,D) + H_machine_address
>
Because they are different computations they are
not required to have the same behavior.
When I specify that every machine can know its own machine address>Right, which proves your C functions also were never the required computation, as they has an extra "hidden" input. As has been told to you many times in the past.
H(D,D) immediately sees the first time it calls itself
with its same inputs.
>
H1(D,D) never sees it call itself with its same inputs.
>
Full Execution trace of H1(D,D)
(a) main() invokes H1(D,D)
(b) H1(D,D) simulates D(D)
(c) Simulated D(D) calls simulated H(D,D)
(d) Simulated H(D,D) simulates another D(D)
(e) Simulated H(D,D) aborts this D(D) when it would call itself
(f) Simulated H(D,D) returns 0 to simulated caller D(D)
(g) Simulated caller D(D) returns to H1(D,D)
(h) H1(D,D) returns 1 to main()
>
They cannot be implemented as Turing Machines or Olcott
Machines. They can be implemented as RASP machines proven
by the fact that they are implemented as C functions.
>
So, you just admitted that you hae just been lying for all these years, and you are no closer to your fantasy goal then you ever were.I just admitted that it took me about two years to translate my
Sorry, you just don't know enough to do this problem.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.