On 8/7/2025 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is concerned
is his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his
conflation of) *execution* with *computation*.
/Flibble
We spent years going over this point in this forum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
On 8/7/2025 5:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 17:15:12 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/7/2025 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is concerned
is his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his
conflation of) *execution* with *computation*.
/Flibble
We spent years going over this point in this forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
You only think in terms of execution hence the erroneous recursion
manifesting (and which you "abort") in your HHH.
/Flibble
That no one ever thought of a simulating halt decider based on a UTM
before is why there is no separate notion of a directly executing Turing machine.
Turing Machine Linz Ĥ applied to its own machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞,
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is directly executing.
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H is not directly executing.
On 8/7/2025 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is concerned is
his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his conflation
of) *execution* with *computation*.
/Flibble
We spent years going over this point in this forum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
On 8/7/2025 5:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 17:15:12 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/7/2025 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is concerned
is his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his
conflation of) *execution* with *computation*.
/Flibble
We spent years going over this point in this forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
You only think in terms of execution hence the erroneous recursion
manifesting (and which you "abort") in your HHH.
/Flibble
That no one ever thought of a simulating halt decider
based on a UTM before is why there is no separate notion
of a directly executing Turing machine.
Turing Machine Linz Ĥ applied to its own machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞,
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is directly executing.
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H is not directly executing.
On 8/7/2025 5:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 17:15:12 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/7/2025 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is concerned
is his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his
conflation of) *execution* with *computation*.
/Flibble
We spent years going over this point in this forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
You only think in terms of execution hence the erroneous recursion
manifesting (and which you "abort") in your HHH.
/Flibble
That no one ever thought of a simulating halt decider
based on a UTM before is why there is no separate notion
of a directly executing Turing machine.
On 8/7/2025 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is concerned is
his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his conflation
of) *execution* with *computation*.
/Flibble
We spent years going over this point in this forum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
On 8/9/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-07 22:15:12 +0000, olcott said:
We spent years going over this point in this forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
Apparently without achieving anything.
Only because people here are dead set on rebuttal
even at the expense of truth.
The behavior of DD() is not the behavior that HHH
can possibly see.
HHH can only see the behavior that
its actual input actually specifies as measured by
DD correctly simulated by HHH.
Requiring HHH to report on anything besides the behavior
that its actual input actually specifies is the same as
requiring sum(3,2) to report on the sum of 6 + 3.
It is incorrect for HHH(DD) to report on the behavior
of DD() after HHH has aborted its simulation.
It has always been a false assumption that a halt
decider must report on the behavior of the direct
execution of a Turing machine.
On 8/9/2025 9:49 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/08/2025 15:36, olcott wrote:
<snip>
It is incorrect for HHH(DD) to report on the behavior
of DD() after HHH has aborted its simulation.
Fair enough. Unfortunately, it is also incorrect for HHH(DD)
not to. HHH can't win.
Clearly, simulation is the wrong approach.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
On 8/9/2025 10:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/08/2025 16:02, olcott wrote:
It has always been a false assumption that a halt
decider must report on the behavior of the direct
execution of a Turing machine.
Unsupported claim.
I will agree, though, that it has always been a false
assumption that a halt decider /can/ always report correctly on
the behaviour of any arbitrary Turing Machine.
Proof: Turing's paper.
It is dishonest for you to disagree prior to
looking at all of what I said when your
disagreement is anchored in a false assumption.
Computable functions
have never been allowed to
report on non-inputs.
That you keep insisting
that they must proves your lack of attention
to detail.
On 8/9/2025 9:35 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/08/2025 15:31, olcott wrote:
The behavior of DD() is not the behavior that HHH
can possibly see.
Okay, so you concede that HHH is not fit for purpose.
*Not at all*
On 8/9/2025 9:35 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/08/2025 15:31, olcott wrote:
It has always been a false assumption that a halt decider must report onThe behavior of DD() is not the behavior that HHH can possibly see.Okay, so you concede that HHH is not fit for purpose.
the behavior of the direct execution of a Turing machine.
On 8/9/2025 2:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-07 23:36:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/7/2025 5:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 17:15:12 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/7/2025 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is concerned >>>>>> is his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his
conflation of) *execution* with *computation*.
/Flibble
We spent years going over this point in this forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
You only think in terms of execution hence the erroneous recursion
manifesting (and which you "abort") in your HHH.
/Flibble
That no one ever thought of a simulating halt decider
based on a UTM before is why there is no separate notion
of a directly executing Turing machine.
In fact direct execution is just another simulation. A text string
does not execute by itself. In order to have an exectuion someone
or something must interprete the text and act accordingly.
It is incorrect for HHH(DD) to report on the behavior
of DD() after HHH has aborted its simulation.
This is the same thing as believing that one never needs
to eat entirely on the basis of knowing that one will not
need to eat after one has eaten. This misconception will
cause death by starvation.
On 8/9/2025 2:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-07 23:36:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/7/2025 5:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 17:15:12 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/7/2025 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is concerned >>>>>> is his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his
conflation of) *execution* with *computation*.
/Flibble
We spent years going over this point in this forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
You only think in terms of execution hence the erroneous recursion
manifesting (and which you "abort") in your HHH.
/Flibble
That no one ever thought of a simulating halt decider
based on a UTM before is why there is no separate notion
of a directly executing Turing machine.
In fact direct execution is just another simulation. A text string
does not execute by itself. In order to have an exectuion someone
or something must interprete the text and act accordingly.
It is incorrect for HHH(DD) to report on the behavior
of DD() after HHH has aborted its simulation.
On 8/9/2025 10:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/08/2025 16:16, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2025 9:35 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/08/2025 15:31, olcott wrote:
<snip>
The behavior of DD() is not the behavior that HHH
can possibly see.
Okay, so you concede that HHH is not fit for purpose.
*Not at all*
No surprise there.
Because I do not simply ignore the reasoning
that disagrees with me, (as you do).
I prove that this reasoning is incorrect and
you simply ignore this proof.
On 2025-08-09 14:36:40 +0000, olcott said:
It is incorrect for HHH(DD) to report on the behavior
of DD() after HHH has aborted its simulation.
It is incorrect to report anything other than what the problem
statement requires to be reported.
On 2025-08-09 15:48:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2025 10:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/08/2025 16:16, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2025 9:35 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/08/2025 15:31, olcott wrote:
<snip>
The behavior of DD() is not the behavior that HHH
can possibly see.
Okay, so you concede that HHH is not fit for purpose.
*Not at all*
No surprise there.
Because I do not simply ignore the reasoning
that disagrees with me, (as you do).
You do ignore more often you don't.
I prove that this reasoning is incorrect and
you simply ignore this proof.
You never prove.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 154:35:38 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,848 |