olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >>>>>
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>>
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>Yes it is.
The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input?
The question is:
Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ?
The ansswer to this question is provably no!
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linzspec.
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction.
Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec.
know what the key words mean:
if M applied to wM does not haltNo. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M
means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of
the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn
applied to wM halts"?
the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >>>>> omitting them.
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and itsUngrammatical.
input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx.
When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulatedYes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong.
input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ.
What is your basis for believing that is wrong?
what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation)
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can
see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case.
the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
and so on. Same old stuff.
I'm sorry my explanation did not help at all. I'm happy to answer any
other questions you might have if you think it might help you understand
what I (and Linz) are saying.
On 8/10/2021 9:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >>>> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you >>>>>>>> don't yet
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>>>
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes it is.
The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input?
The question is:
Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ?
The ansswer to this question is provably no!
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not >>>>>>>>>> meet Linzspec.
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction.
Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec.
know what the key words mean:
if M applied to wM does not haltNo. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" >>>>>>>> means?
means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its >>>>>>>>> input of
the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a >>>>>>>> case of "M
applied to wM halts"?
the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the >>>>>>> problem
is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an >>>>>>> input w,
does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, >>>>>>> perform a
computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that >>>>>> text.
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
keep
omitting them.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine >>>>>>> and itsUngrammatical.
input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at
Ĥ.qx.
When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulatedYes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong.
input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ.
What is your basis for believing that is wrong?
should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you
can
see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >>>>
the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
and so on. Same old stuff.
When the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe a deceptive intent.
-- the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
-- is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
-- does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
-- computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
The input to H will be the description (encoded in some form) of M, say
WM, as well as the input w. (Linz:1990:318)
H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn
if M applied to W does not halt.
becomes
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf
M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx
M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx
M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx
M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if M applied to wM does not halt
When we know that M refers to the Turing machine specified by the first
wM then when Ĥ transitions to its final state of Ĥ.qn there is no direct contradiction formed.
Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong?
Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong?
Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong?
Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong?
if M applied to wM does not halt (see above for definition of M)
means when the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ.qx correctly transitions to its final state when the Ĥ.qx acts as a
UTM and simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and determines that this input never halts.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/11/2021 9:28 AM, olcott wrote:
Subject: Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ]
This is a scumbag move. It's also cowardly and disingenuous --
pretending to be coy about your scumbag opinions. I'll leave it
unedited as it says everything readers need to know about your
character.
When the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply
ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe
a deceptive intent.
A scumbag could construe it that way. Reasonable people could come to
all sorts of other conclusions.
if M applied to MW does not halt.H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn
if M applied to W does not halt.
(typo corrected)
becomes
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
Yes. After a lot a pressing (and I mean lots, over several years!) you eventually admitted that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does indeed transition to H.qn.
You also keep telling us that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. That's why your H
(and its associated Ĥ) are wrong but for some reason you can't see this.
You will plainly state that H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩" which it should do if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. And you will, time and time again, show us exactly how Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
This should be the end of the matter, but apparently your stating facts
that show that H and Ĥ are wrong does not mean you know that H and Ĥ are wrong. I don't think I know any way to make progress on this.
...Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if M applied to wM does not halt
if M applied to wM does not halt (see above for definition of
M) means when the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
Of course. We all know that. Unless you are pulling a fast one. "the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩" is just Ĥ. Is there a reason you are not simply saying "when Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt"?
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ.qx correctly transitions to its final state when the Ĥ.qx acts as a
UTM and simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and determines that this input never halts.
Yes, we know the ruse: the computation would not halt if it were not the computation that it is. You've been trying to pull off this trick ever
since the infamous "it wouldn't halt if line 15 was commented out"
admission. Your Ĥ, however, not being a UTM, has the property that
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
when it should not. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ should eventually transition to qn only "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt" (or, as you rather suspiciously write "if the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt"). But
you've told us, time and time again, that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You keep showing us the summary description of it's configuration sequence.
You keep showing us the final state it transitions to. It's so obvious, someone would need about 16 years misunderstanding Turing machines to
avoid seeing it.
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
if M applied to wM halts, and // M refers to the TM of the first wM
parameter to Ĥ.qx
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM
parameter to Ĥ.qx
The case you care about has M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you've written it out above.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/11/2021 9:28 AM, olcott wrote:Subject: Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no
contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ]
This is a scumbag move. It's also cowardly and disingenuous --
pretending to be coy about your scumbag opinions. I'll leave it
unedited as it says everything readers need to know about your
character.
This is still a scumbag move.
A scumbag could construe it that way. Reasonable people could come toWhen the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply >>>>> ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe >>>>> a deceptive intent.
all sorts of other conclusions.
if M applied to MW does not halt.H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn
if M applied to W does not halt.
(typo corrected)
becomes
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
Yes. After a lot a pressing (and I mean lots, over several years!) you
eventually admitted that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does indeed transition to H.qn.
You also keep telling us that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. That's why your H
(and its associated Ĥ) are wrong but for some reason you can't see this. >>>
You will plainly state that H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩" which it
should do if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. And you >>> will, time and time again, show us exactly how Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
This should be the end of the matter, but apparently your stating facts
that show that H and Ĥ are wrong does not mean you know that H and Ĥ are >>> wrong. I don't think I know any way to make progress on this.
You just read past this explanation of why your H and Ĥ are wrong and
you decided that you understood everything I'd said, did you? And you
also decided that nothing in these three paragraphs needs to be
challenged?
There's not much more I can add if you do indeed understand and accept
these remarks of mine. But, as I keep saying, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about my explanation.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/11/2021 9:28 AM, olcott wrote:
if M applied to MW does not halt.H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn
if M applied to W does not halt.
(typo corrected)
Yes. After a lot a pressing (and I mean lots, over several years!) youbecomes
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
eventually admitted that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does indeed transition to H.qn.
You also keep telling us that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. That's why your H
(and its associated Ĥ) are wrong but for some reason you can't see this. >>> You will plainly state that H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩" which it
should do if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. And you >>> will, time and time again, show us exactly how Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
This should be the end of the matter, but apparently your stating facts
that show that H and Ĥ are wrong does not mean you know that H and Ĥ are >>> wrong. I don't think I know any way to make progress on this.
...Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if M applied to wM does not halt
Of course. We all know that. Unless you are pulling a fast one. "theif M applied to wM does not halt (see above for definition of
M) means when the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩" is just Ĥ. Is there a reason you are not simply
saying "when Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt"?
I didn't expect an answer. You may be reserving this phrase as a
get-out clause for later, so saying what you mean too early will block
that escape route.
Yes, we know the ruse: the computation would not halt if it were not the >>> computation that it is. You've been trying to pull off this trick everĤ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ.qx correctly transitions to its final state when the Ĥ.qx acts as a >>>>> UTM and simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and determines that this input never halts.
since the infamous "it wouldn't halt if line 15 was commented out"
admission. Your Ĥ, however, not being a UTM, has the property that
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
when it should not. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ should eventually transition to qn only >>> "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt" (or, as you rather suspiciously >>> write "if the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt").
We can see that the above never halts.
We can see that it halts. It's right there in a fact that has been undisputed for months:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/11/2021 6:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 8/11/2021 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:help in any way, do let me know.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can goYou fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an >>>>> add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by >>>>> detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour. >>>>> In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx
point by point and point out each individual error step by step.
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not.
Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you >>>>> intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error >>>>> in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your >>>>> code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with >>>>> 100% correctness. Do you follow?
Of courseThen stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to >>>>> explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper.
everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct.
H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qnYes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's >>>>> specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider). >>>>>
becomes
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong?Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working >>>>> out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep
removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in?
Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: >>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf
PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can
I just noticed that you acknowledged that M refers to the TM
represented by the first input parameter to Ĥ.qx wM wM
Did I? Oh dear. It's garbage. Where did I "acknowledge" it? I'd like
to go back and point out that it's mathematical junk.
so we can move to the next point:
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
if M applied to wM halts, and
This is just a metaphorical math poem. You've taken a mathematical
statement and substituted for only some on the occurrences of a
variable. That is a schoolboy error.
Maybe you confused agreement with "can't be bothered to go of on a
tangent about a math poem". I certainly let many meaningless things you write slip by unremarked upon. There are not enough hours in the day to point out all your mistakes.
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn // see highlighted portion of Linz text >> to confirm:
if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM
parameter to Ĥ.qx
Linz requires that
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if, and only if, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
Unlike your garbage, this makes sense because all occurrences of M and
the derived wM have now been substituted for actual values -- your Ĥ and
its encoding.
Here is the overview of what I am claiming:
Turing machine Ĥ is applied to its input ⟨Ĥ⟩.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩
It copies this input such that this input and the copy of this input
become the first and second parameters to the simulating halt decider
at Ĥ.qx.
⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ decides that the simulation of its first parameter
on the input of its second parameter never halt it correctly
transitions to its own final state of Ĥ.qn.
⊢* Ĥ.qn
None of which (other than your poor use of technical terms) has been in
doubt for months.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if, and only if, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
It is easy to see that when the halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a simulating
halt decider that there is an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0 that
prevents the input from every reaching its final state.
If Ĥ were not written as you have chosen to write it -- if it were
instead a pure simulator, then
⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ∞
would be the case. Mathematicians would avoid this messy language and
the possibility of confusion by not re-using the name Ĥ for both your partial decider and one based on pure simulation.
Also, you are wrong about the cycles of states, but that's because you
have no clue how a TM would simulate another TM.
It's a rabbit hole we
shouldn't go down, because (a) I don't think you could ever understand
how a UTM really works, and (b) it's irrelevant since I agree that there would be infinite execution if Ĥ were not as it is but were, instead, a
pure simulator.
When we define halting as reaching a final state
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. The computation reaches the final state Ĥ.qn.
so that we can unequivocally divide computations that complete from
those that are aborted,
So this is today's equivocation. TM computations either halt or they
don't halt. None of them "abort".
then we know that the input to Ĥ.qx never
halts, thus making its halt status decison correct.
Garbled. Inputs don't halt or not halt. Your Ĥ does not meet Linz's
spec because Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts when it should not. You don't get to say it does because it halts in what you think of as special way.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
if M applied to wM halts, and
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if M applied to wM does not halt
// M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx
Now that you accept that the above is true...
I don't. It's a garbled formula arising from a silly error on your
part. I'd like to know where (you think) I said I accept this nonsense
so I can correct any such impression.
... we can move on to the next point. My proof must proceed exactly
one point at a time an cannot possibly move to the next point until
the current point is fully accepted.
It would be simpler if we worked though the reasons you are wrong
because there are fewer steps.
You've stated that
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
and you accept (at least you keep quoting) that Linz requires that this should be the case only if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. QED.
That you believe that the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to
its final state of Ĥ.qn and halts nullifies the fact that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
does correctly decide that its input never halts is the next point.
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation as shown a few
lines above. That Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts does not "nullify" anything, it's just wrong as clearly stated by Linz.
On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 16:50:19 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
On 8/12/2021 10:40 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:OK, so why don't we get a second "Begin Local Halt Decider ..." line output?
On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 13:24:46 UTC+1, olcott wrote:The halt decider automatically writes this when it begins the simulation
On 8/12/2021 3:36 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:OK, so let's start.
On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:[00000d02](01) 55 push ebp
On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution trace shows
On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague
On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >>>>>>>>> help in any way, do let me know.
That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel >>>>>>>> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do >>>>>>>> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font >>>>>>>> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will >>>>>>>> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another >>>>>>>> notation to misuse and abuse.
Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making:
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
if M applied to wM halts, and
Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if M applied to wM does not halt
// M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx
My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the >>>>>>> next point until the current point is accepted as correct.
impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode. >>>>>> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you >>>>>> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like >>>>>> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may >>>>>> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get >>>>>> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have >>>>>> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you >>>>>> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your >>>>>> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards >>>>>> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you. >>>>>> -
what appears to be an infinitely recursive process aborted, and everyone is
just ignoring that and focusing on the other reality that his H does not >>>>> return the result that matches the behaviour of the input when run independently.
The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it >>>>> doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, but in fact
it's not that.
Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H works. >>>> _P()
[00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push 2nd Param
[00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push 1st Param
[00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
[00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b
[00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19
[00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000d1c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00000d0d][00101829][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02
...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P
...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P
...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P
...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P
...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
If this means that you are telling me that:
(1) You know the x86 language very well.
(2) Can't begin to understand why P would be stuck in infinitely nested >>>> simulation while H acts as a pure simulator?
There's a line which says "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine >>> Address:d02". Is that part of the execution trace, or is it a commented added
by hand? If it is part of the execution trace, why doesn't this line appear >>> before the second line with the label 0d02?
that its halt analysis is based on.
That was a demand for an apology, but you are too focused on your own interests to be sensitive to what other people are trying to communicate to you.So do (1) and (2) apply to you?I have a PhD. PhD holder attach a very high value to honesty, in particular >>> with respect to their subjects. But also more generally. I always draw attention
I would say that you must be a liar.
if I'm given too much change at the pub, for example, not becaue I'm better >>> than other people, but because I'm a doctor, and a doctor can't be seen to >>> take money that doesn't belong to him.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 73:20:24 |
| Calls: | 6,657 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,332,384 |
| Posted today: | 1 |