Sujet : H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
De : polcott2 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Mar 2024, 17:34:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <usn89c$3m7k2$4@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/11/2024 10:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-11 14:31:37 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/11/2024 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-10 14:29:20 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 3/10/2024 7:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
>
>
Yes, except the TM doing the simulating cannot be an Olcott machine.
>
That is not "ecept", that is containted in what the word "Truring machine"
means.
>
Anway, a Truing machine can, with a simulation of your machine, compute
everything your machine can, so your machine cannot compute anyting a
Turing machine cannot.
>
>
Turing Machines, Olcott Machines, RASP machines and my C functions
can always correctly report on the behavior of their actual input
When they report on this question:
Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
If they only talk about themselves they are not useful.
When every simulating halt decider reports on the actual behavior
that it actually sees, then the pathological input does not
thwart it.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…