From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 10/23/2025 9:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Please consider exiting the subject line when replying to a post were PO deliberately maligns people by name. It's just PO being nasty to people
who are now ignoring him.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then

H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.

*You were my best reviewer on the above words everyone*
*else just stonewalled*

He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop.
The wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H
(and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.

As I have recently shown the halting problem requires
a halt decider to do what no Turing machine can do
to compute the mapping other than the one specified
by its input. This is a category error.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394345150_Halting_Problem_Simulation_Paradox

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their finite string inputs to an accept state
or reject state on the basis that this input finite
string specifies a semantic or syntactic property.

This means that the ultimate measure of the behavior
that a finite string input D specifies is D correctly
simulated by simulating halt decider H.

The halting problem requires that halt deciders do what
no Turing machine decider can do report on the semantic
property of non-inputs.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 10/23/2025 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:

As I have recently shown the halting problem requires
a halt decider to do what no Turing machine can do
to compute the mapping other than the one specified
by its input. This is a category error.

False, as you have admitted:


On 10/20/2025 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/20/2025 10:45 PM, dbush wrote:

And it is a semantic tautology that a finite string description of a
Turing machine is stipulated to specify all semantic properties of the
described machine, including whether it halts when executed directly.
And it is this semantic property that halt deciders are required to
report on.

Yes that is all correct

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2