Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.philosophy    |    Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this    |    59,235 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 57,762 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Mr Flibble    |
|    Re: Proof that DDD is correctly emulated    |
|    01 Aug 25 19:25:54    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 8/1/2025 7:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:       > On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 19:07:44 -0500, olcott wrote:       >       >> On 8/1/2025 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       >>> On 8/1/25 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:       >>>> On 8/1/2025 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       >>>>> On 8/1/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:>>       >>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H determines the behavior that       > *THE       >>>>>> ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H specifies. Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not and cannot       >>>>>> possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H so its differing       >>>>>> behavior *DOES NOT COUNT*.       >>>>>>       >>>>>>       >>>>> NO!!!!       >>>>>       >>>>> By that standard, any input could mean anything becuase the machine       >>>>> it is being given can do whatever it wants with it.       >>>>>       >>>>>       >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞       >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn (a) Ĥ       copies its       > input ⟨Ĥ⟩       >>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩       >>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩       >>>>       >>>> Yes if you ignore that I said that Ĥ.embedded_H is based on a UTM and       >>>> ignore the above is the definition of machine Ĥ that could be true.       >>>       >>> "Based on" does not mean *IS*       >>>       >>> If you add code to the original UTM, then it no longer is a UTM, and       >>> its partial simulation is not determative.       >>>       >>>       >> *That is your one huge mistake*       >> As soon as the repeating pattern emerges then this repeating pattern       >> *is* determinative.       >       > Recognising such a repeating pattern is no different to recognising       > repeated state in a finite state machine however such a recogniser, a       > simulating halt decider, is only a partial decider so of little interest       > as far as the Halting Problem is concerned.       >       > /Flibble              My sole purpose is to show that the conventional HP proofs       do not prove undecidability. I have done that.              --       Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius       hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca