Sujet : Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--
De : news (at) *nospam* immibis.com (immibis)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 09. Mar 2024, 17:33:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <ushvg9$2cpjp$2@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 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/03/24 16:04, olcott wrote:
On 3/9/2024 7:11 AM, immibis wrote:
On 8/03/24 20:08, olcott wrote:
On 3/8/2024 12:58 PM, immibis wrote:
On 8/03/24 19:12, olcott wrote:
>
Unless it is an extra parameter it has no basis for doing this.
If it is an extra parameter then it is no longer the Linz proof.
>
>
So it's impossible to make a Turing machine that writes 12345 onto its tape unless 12345 is a parameter?
>
That is a valid point.
It is impossible to get me to talk about that until
we first have full closure that the Linz H correctly
determines the halt status of the Linz Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when run
in the Olcott master UTM.
>
>
When run in the Olcott master UTM as Olcott machines, the Linz proof does not work because it is designed for Turing machines. A different proof works.
Because Olcott machines are more powerful than Turing Machines they can correctly determine the halt status of this input: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <H>.
Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <H> always calculates the same answer that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <H> calculates.
Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--
Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--