On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 11:35:11 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:reject <Ha^><Ha^>.
On 3/31/2022 10:31 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:48:09 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 3/31/2022 9:32 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:11:43 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
Bottom line: a halt decider H given input <M><I> is required to report if M applied to <I> halts.The correct simulation of <M><I> by the simulating halt decider at the >>>> point in the execution trace where the simulating halt decider actually >>>> is does demonstrate the actual behavior specified by <M><I> at this
point in the execution trace.
It is merely a very persistent false assumption that a correct
simulation of <M><I> at some other different point in the execution
trace must derive identical behavior.
Using an alternate definition doesn't work as doing so leads to the above. >>>>>
Q.E.D.These three points are the basis of my correct analysis.
(1) Linz: computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever >>>> it enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
The *turning machine*, not a partial simulation of a turing machine.
(2) That a correct simulation of a Turing machine description that would >>>> never reach its final state is computationally equivalent to the direct >>>> execution of this same Turing machine never reaching its final state.
The direct execution of the turing machine Ha^ applied to <Ha^> reaches a final state, therefore the correct simulation of that turing machine would reach a final state.
Hb applied to <Ha^><Ha^> reaches a final state of its input and is therefore a correct simulation. Ha applied to <Ha^><Ha^> does not reach a final state its input and is therefore not a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb.
(3) That analyzing the behavior of a correct partial simulation of some >>>> of the steps of a Turing machine description can accurately predict that >>>> a full simulation would never reach its final state.
It *can*, but not in the case of Ha applied to <Ha^><Ha^> as demonstrated by Hb applied to <Ha^><Ha^>.
As I said before :
Any logic you use to show that Ha is correct to reject <Ha^><Ha^> can also be used to show that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>, and any logic you use to show that Ha3 is not correct to reject <N><5> can be used to show that that Ha is not correct to
THE PART THAT YOU IGNORED
The correct simulation of <M><I> by the simulating halt decider at the
point in the execution trace where the simulating halt decider actually
is does demonstrate the actual behavior specified by <M><I> at this
point in the execution trace.
It is merely a very persistent false assumption that a correct
simulation of <M><I> at some other different point in the execution
trace must derive identical behavior.
A fundamental property of turning machines is that they always give the same output for a given input, otherwise it's not a turing machine.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
The directly executed Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the first invocation of
infinite recursion that only terminates normally because of its
one-way dependency relationship on embedded_H aborting the second
invocation of this otherwise infinite recursion.
This is the old "it only halts because" ruse...
DIFFERENT SEQUENCES OF CONFIGURATIONS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR:
This makes the sequence of configurations of the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
outside of Ĥ different than the the sequence of configurations of the
simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ inside of Ĥ. Different sequences of
configurations will have different behavior.
But this is magic PO-machines again. I thought you had decided that was
a non-starter?
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 3/31/2022 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
The directly executed Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the first invocation of >>>> infinite recursion that only terminates normally because of itsThis is the old "it only halts because" ruse...
one-way dependency relationship on embedded_H aborting the second
invocation of this otherwise infinite recursion.
DIFFERENT SEQUENCES OF CONFIGURATIONS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR:
This makes the sequence of configurations of the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
outside of Ĥ different than the the sequence of configurations of the >>>> simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ inside of Ĥ. Different sequences of
configurations will have different behavior.
But this is magic PO-machines again. I thought you had decided that was >>> a non-starter?
DIFFERENT SEQUENCES OF CONFIGURATIONS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR.
That there is conditional branch on one path and no conditional branch
on the other path makes the behavior vary between paths.
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ depends on the decision made by embedded_H.
Yes, you are clear that
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qn
but please complete the following line for me:
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* H.q?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 122:51:24 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Files: | 12,212 |
Messages: | 5,334,631 |