XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/13/2025 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/13/25 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/13/2025 8:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/13/25 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/13/2025 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/13/25 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/13/2025 3:32 PM, 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Since no Turing machine ever takes any Machine   
   >>>>>>> M as an input this  a category error even   
   >>>>>>> when this makes no functional difference.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> They simply glossed over this key detail because   
   >>>>>>> they thought that it made no difference.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> *Defining a halt decider with perfect accuracy*   
   >>>>>>> Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping   
   >>>>>>> from input finite strings to an {accept, reject}   
   >>>>>>> value on the basis of the behavior that this   
   >>>>>>> input finite string specifies.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> By simply adding more detail we can make the   
   >>>>>> original definition more precise:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> A Turing machine based halt decider reports on the   
   >>>>>> behavior of machine M on input w thorough the   
   >>>>>> proxy of the finite string machine description of   
   >>>>>> ⟨M⟩ on input w.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The above seems to be more precisely accurate   
   >>>>>> than any published proof. It includes a key   
   >>>>>> detail that all of them seem to leave out.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If you know of any published proof that directly   
   >>>>>> refers to the idea of a proxy, please let me know.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And the use of a string proxy is just normally assumed by the   
   >>>>> theory, as that is how Turing Machine work.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> See that three agreements in one day.   
   >>>> That may be more than we have ever had.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Because none of the textbooks ever directly said   
   >>>> that the finite string input is only a proxy for   
   >>>> the behavior everyone always took the proxy to be   
   >>>> exactly one-and-the-same thing as the actual behavior.   
   >>>   
   >>> But the behavior represented by the string *IS* exactly the behavior   
   >>> of the string, so you attempted point just falls flat.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Do you really think that I will keep going   
   >> on this for 22 years if it just falls flat?   
   >   
   > It seems you have.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Google Groups has a much better search so   
   >> you can see the 40,000 messages that I posted   
   >> in comp.theory since 2004.   
   >>   
   >> My very first Halting Problem post Jun 6, 2004, 9:11:19 AM   
   >> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed   
   >> It has lots and lots of replies.   
   >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/V7wzVvx8IMw/m/ggPE6a-60cUJ   
   >   
   > But it isn't, and you haven't been able to show it, because you never   
   > knew what you were talking about.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> And, as I said, even your Linz book made that clear, as H took as it   
   >>> input Wm (the string) not M (the machine).   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> That is not the issue. All the textbooks say that.   
   >   
   > No, you just don't know how to read them.   
   >   
   > As I pointed out. Your Linz make the detail clear if you actually   
   > understand what you are reading.   
   >   
   > Text Books are written assuming the reader has met the prerequisites for   
   > the course, and will be suplemented by the instructor.   
   >   
   > Clearly you don't meet that requirement.   
   >   
   > Part of your problem is it seems you jumped your understanding level,   
   > and ignored basic Computation Theory and an introduction into Turing   
   > Machines, and thus don't understand the material you did read.   
   >   
   > This was clear a few years ago when you tried to learn how Turing   
   > Machine worked and just went off the rails and refused to actually learn   
   > the basics.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> The issue is that this finite string AS AN INPUT   
   >> is the ultimate basis of the halt decision even   
   >> when it is not a good proxy for the behavior of   
   >> the executed machine.   
   >   
   > And why would it not be?   
   >   
   > If the user gives it the wrong data, they can't expect the right answer.   
   >   
   > If the input isn't a representation of a Halting Program, then the halt   
   > decider must reject, as it only accepts inputs that represent Halting   
   > Programs.   
      
   There is only one correct measure of the behavior   
   that a finite string AS AN INPUT specifies.   
      
   Everyone has missed this because none of the   
   textbooks EMPHASIZED that the finite string   
   AS AN INPUT is only a proxy for what the halting   
   problem asks for.   
      
   > That is the nature of such a decider. (Perhaps a more   
   > complicated one could have a third output for input has a syntactic/   
   > grammatical error that makes it not the representation of a program)   
   >   
   > If it is a representation of some different program then was intended,   
   > then it is correct to answer about the program that the input represents.   
   >   
   > So, your case isn't a refutation.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is showing your ignorance of the topic.   
      
      
   --   
   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)