1. Forum
  2. Newsgroups
  3. comp.theory

  • Re: Defining a halt decider with perfect accuracy

    From Mikko@mikko.levanto@iki.fi to comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy on Thu Dec 18 12:36:33 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 17/12/2025 16:06, olcott wrote:
    On 12/17/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 15/12/2025 16:05, olcott wrote:
    On 12/15/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 15/12/2025 02:39, olcott wrote:
    On 12/14/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/14/25 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/14/2025 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/14/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/14/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 13/12/2025 23:32, olcott wrote:

    All of the textbooks require halt deciders to
    report on the behavior of machine M on input w.
    This may be easy to understand yet not precisely
    accurate.

    That is precisely accurate. The problem is exactly what the >>>>>>>>>> problem
    statement says. You may define your problem differently but then >>>>>>>>>> you just have another problem. The halting problem still is what >>>>>>>>>> it was.


    All the textbooks simply ignore that no Turing
    machine can possibly compute the mapping from
    the behavior from another actual Turing machine.

    Sure it can, from the representation of it.

    Just like it can add two numbers by using representatins.


    They can only compute the mapping from a finite
    string input that is a mere proxy for this behavior.

    And the proxy represents that same behavior, so it must get the >>>>>>>> same result.


    As I have conclusively proved many thousands of
    times that the behavior of DD AS AN ACTUAL INPUT
    to HHH does SPECIFY non-halting behavior.

    No you haven't,
    I say that I have proven this
    DD AS AN INPUT TO HHH(DD)

    You keep repeating that the meaning of DD as imput ot HHH is different >>>> from the meaning of DD per se. But you never say what that different
    meaning is.

    Or I do say it 500 times and you never notice.

    You are right, i have never noticed a pointer to any of those 500.

    DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C
    cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
    final halt state.

    And you still don't say.

    (a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
    using finite string transformation rules.

    (b) There exists no alternative more definitive measure
    of the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies (within
    finite string transformation rules) than P simulated by H.

    Nothing new there.
    --
    Mikko
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy on Thu Dec 18 07:04:55 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/18/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 17/12/2025 16:06, olcott wrote:
    On 12/17/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 15/12/2025 16:05, olcott wrote:
    On 12/15/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 15/12/2025 02:39, olcott wrote:
    On 12/14/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/14/25 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/14/2025 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/14/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/14/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 13/12/2025 23:32, olcott wrote:

    All of the textbooks require halt deciders to
    report on the behavior of machine M on input w.
    This may be easy to understand yet not precisely
    accurate.

    That is precisely accurate. The problem is exactly what the >>>>>>>>>>> problem
    statement says. You may define your problem differently but then >>>>>>>>>>> you just have another problem. The halting problem still is what >>>>>>>>>>> it was.


    All the textbooks simply ignore that no Turing
    machine can possibly compute the mapping from
    the behavior from another actual Turing machine.

    Sure it can, from the representation of it.

    Just like it can add two numbers by using representatins.


    They can only compute the mapping from a finite
    string input that is a mere proxy for this behavior.

    And the proxy represents that same behavior, so it must get the >>>>>>>>> same result.


    As I have conclusively proved many thousands of
    times that the behavior of DD AS AN ACTUAL INPUT
    to HHH does SPECIFY non-halting behavior.

    No you haven't,
    I say that I have proven this
    DD AS AN INPUT TO HHH(DD)

    You keep repeating that the meaning of DD as imput ot HHH is different >>>>> from the meaning of DD per se. But you never say what that different >>>>> meaning is.

    Or I do say it 500 times and you never notice.

    You are right, i have never noticed a pointer to any of those 500.

    DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C
    cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
    final halt state.

    And you still don't say.

    (a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
    using finite string transformation rules.

    (b) There exists no alternative more definitive measure
    of the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies (within
    finite string transformation rules) than P simulated by H.

    Nothing new there.


    Therefore H(P)==0 is correct.

    int P()
    {
    int Halt_Status = H(P);
    if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
    }

    int main()
    {
    H(P);
    return 0;
    }
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2