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 58,760 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: Turing-machine deciders a precise de    |
|    23 Dec 25 11:20:31    |
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/23/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/23/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/23/25 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that   
   >>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},   
   >>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the   
   >>>> input alphabet. That is:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,   
   >>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated   
   >>>> according to one of two types of properties:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (a) Syntactic property: a property of the input   
   >>>> string itself, such as containing a particular   
   >>>> substring or satisfying a structural pattern.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of   
   >>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input   
   >>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself   
   >>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property   
   >>>> holds for the input and Reject otherwise.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Ok, do you understand what this means?   
   >>>   
   >>> In particular your 2(b) means that whether the MACHINE that the input   
   >>> is an encoding of will halt when run is a valid property.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.   
   >   
   > So, what is wrong with my reading of it?   
   >   
      
   You derived an incorrect paraphrase on   
   the basis of ignoring most of the words.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca