home bbs files messages ]

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 58,659 of 59,235   
   olcott to Richard Damon   
   Re: Defining a halt decider with perfect   
   14 Dec 25 18:39:01   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/14/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/14/25 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/14/2025 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/14/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/14/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 13/12/2025 23:32, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> All of the textbooks require halt deciders to   
   >>>>>> report on the behavior of machine M on input w.   
   >>>>>> This may be easy to understand yet not precisely   
   >>>>>> accurate.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> That is precisely accurate. The problem is exactly what the problem   
   >>>>> statement says. You may define your problem differently but then   
   >>>>> you just have another problem. The halting problem still is what   
   >>>>> it was.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> All the textbooks simply ignore that no Turing   
   >>>> machine can possibly compute the mapping from   
   >>>> the behavior from another actual Turing machine.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure it can, from the representation of it.   
   >>>   
   >>> Just like it can add two numbers by using representatins.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They can only compute the mapping from a finite   
   >>>> string input that is a mere proxy for this behavior.   
   >>>   
   >>> And the proxy represents that same behavior, so it must get the same   
   >>> result.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> As I have conclusively proved many thousands of   
   >> times that the behavior of DD AS AN ACTUAL INPUT   
   >> to HHH does SPECIFY non-halting behavior.   
   >   
   > No you haven't,   
   I say that I have proven this   
   DD AS AN INPUT TO HHH(DD)   
      
   and your rebuttal is ALWAYS I am wrong because   
   DD NOT AS AN INPUT TO HHH(DD)   
   has different behavior.   
      
   It is like you have no idea that   
   [NOT TRUE] and [TRUE] are not exactly the same thing   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

              My 28 year goal has been to make
       "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
       reliably computable.

              This required establishing a new foundation
              --- 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