• Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs

    From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 12 13:27:43 2023
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, alt.philosophy
    XPost: sci.math

    A simulating halt decider correctly predicts whether or not its
    correctly simulated input can possibly reach its own final state and
    halt. It does this by correctly recognizing several non-halting behavior patterns in a finite number of steps of correct simulation. Inputs that
    do terminate are simply simulated until they complete.

    When a simulating halt decider correctly simulates N steps of its input
    it derives the exact same N steps that a pure UTM would derive because
    it is itself a UTM with extra features.

    My reviewers cannot show that any of the extra features added to the UTM
    change the behavior of the simulated input for the first N steps of
    simulation:
    -- Watching the behavior doesn't change it.
    -- Matching non-halting behavior patterns doesn't change it
    -- Even aborting the simulation after N steps doesn't change the first
    N steps.

    Because of all this we can know that the first N steps of input D
    simulated by simulating halt decider H are the actual behavior that D
    presents to H for these same N steps.

    computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
    a final state” (Linz:1990:234)

    When we see (after N steps) that D correctly simulated by H cannot
    possibly reach its simulated final state in any finite number of steps
    of correct simulation then we have conclusive proof that D presents non- halting behavior to H.



    *Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs


    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 18 00:00:32 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory, sci.math
    XPost: alt.philosophy

    A simulating halt decider correctly predicts whether or not its
    correctly simulated input can possibly reach its own final state and
    halt. It does this by correctly recognizing several non-halting behavior patterns in a finite number of steps of correct simulation. Inputs that
    do terminate are simply simulated until they complete.

    When a simulating halt decider correctly simulates N steps of its input
    it derives the exact same N steps that a pure UTM would derive because
    it is itself a UTM with extra features.

    My reviewers cannot show that any of the extra features added to the UTM
    change the behavior of the simulated input for the first N steps of
    simulation:
    (a) Watching the behavior doesn't change it.
    (b) Matching non-halting behavior patterns doesn't change it
    (c) Even aborting the simulation after N steps doesn't change the first
    N steps.

    Because of all this we can know that the first N steps of input D
    simulated by simulating halt decider H are the actual behavior that D
    presents to H for these same N steps.

    *computation that halts*… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it
    enters a final state” (Linz:1990:234)

    When we see (after N steps) that D correctly simulated by H cannot
    possibly reach its simulated final state in any finite number of steps
    of correct simulation then we have conclusive proof that D presents non- halting behavior to H.

    *Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs



    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)