Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 261,912 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: Defining a halt decider with perfect    |
|    14 Dec 25 18:39:01    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy       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 |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca