Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

On 3/12/2024 2:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/12/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/12/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/12/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/12/2024 11:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/12/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/12/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-11 15:34:04 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 If it is not useful then nobody cares whether some input can thwart it.
 

 Best selling author of Theory of Computation textbooks:
*Introduction To The Theory Of Computation 3RD, by sipser*
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295/
 Date 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
*MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct*
(He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then
(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
 *When we apply this criteria* (elaborated above)
Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
*Then the halting problem is solved*
 

 No, that isn't what you asked,
 You asked if the CORRECT SIMULATION of the input won't stop, can H abort its simlation.
 Of course, if H aborts it simulation, then BY DEFINITION, its simulation doesn't go on forever and isn't a correct simulation, so that doesn't apply.
 

 It is your persistently repeated mistake that has been corrected
hundreds of times that a correct simulation requires a complete
simulation.
 The words that Professor Sipser agreed to clearly mean that
when a correct partial simulation of D proves that a correct
complete simulation of D would never stop running then H
has both its abort criteria and its halt status criteria.

 Nope, because there is no such thing in Computation theory.
 Only in your incorrect reconstruction from lack of principles.
 You didn't say "PARTIAL", so he wasn't even thinking of it.
 

 "simulates its input D until"
clearly does not mean simulate forever
 

 But you said:
 ... until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted
 

The "until" clearly does not mean to simulate forever.