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 261,914 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: Exactly what halt deciders actually     |
|    14 Dec 25 19:17:40    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.theory       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 12/14/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       > On 12/14/25 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:       >> Whenever any textbook says that a halt decider       >> must compute halting for machine M on input w       >> is it wrong. At best it only computes the halting       >> of M/w through the proxy of finite strings ⟨M⟩/w.       >       > Nope, you are just wrong because you are too stupid to understand       > representations.       >              You already agreed to this, you didn't bother       to pay close enough attention to the paraphrase       of what you already agreed to.              Halt deciders report on the behavior of       Turing machines only through the proxy       of finite string machine descriptions.              Whenever textbooks do not say it exactly that       way they are being less than completely accurate.              >>       >> Turing machine deciders compute the mapping from       >> input finite strings to an accept or reject value       >> by some criterion measure.       >       > Right, and for a Halt Decider, that criteria is the behavior of the       > machine the input string represents.       >              There is a key semantic difference between       finite string x has a syntactic property       and finite string x specifies a semantic property              >>       >> Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping       >> from input finite strings to a halt status on the       >> basis of the behavior that these finite strings       >> inputs actually specify.       >>       >       > And that behavior *IS* the behavior of the machine it represents, or       > your Turing Machine isn't a Halt Decider.       >       > Sorry, all you are doing is proving your ignorance and refusal to learn       > basic meaning.                     --       Copyright 2025 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca