XPost: sci.math, comp.theory
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/15/2025 11:18 AM, Python wrote:
> Le 15/12/2025 à 17:34, olcott a écrit :
>> On 12/15/2025 10:20 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2025 10:08, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 15/12/2025 11:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Halt deciders are ten a penny.
>>>>>
>>>>> This one, for example, works 99% of the time, +/-:
>>>>>
>>>>> int halts(char *prgfilename, void *input)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return 1;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> If you meant to claim that there are no *universal* halt deciders,
>>>>> then of course I agree.
>>>>
>>>> The usual meaning of "halt decider" and "halting decider" is that
>>>> it answers correctly every time.
>>>
>>> Okay, but in a group where a persistent crank is constantly trying to
>>> blur the meaning of "halt decider", being excessively precise may be
>>> no bad thing.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A TM halt decider computes the halt status specified
>> by an input finite string on its tape. It begins in its
>> own start state and ends in one of its its own final
>> halt states.
>
> Trivial, void statement.
>
Superficially it may seem that way.
*halt status specified by an input finite string*
is the very subtle key difference that changes everything.
>> To say that a TM halt decider determines whether or
>> not machine M halts on input w is less than precisely
>> accurate.
>
> It is the definition of an halt decider.
>
--
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)
|
