Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (Venn Diagrams)

[olcott]

On 9/12/2020 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> <cut>
>
>> -I will soon have a partial halt decider sufficiently equivalent
>> -to the Linz H correctly deciding halting on the Linz Ĥ proving
>> -that Ĥ on input Ĥ is halting decidable.
>
> What?!!! Have you been lying to us for the last 21 months? Surely you
> just misspoke. What did you mean to say you will soon have? Another
> one, sufficiently more complex than the original that you hope it will
> bamboozle your readers?
>

The one that I will soon have will be a fully executable version of the
exact same code that I wrote 2018-12-13 @ 7:00 PM. I had to create a
full operating system infrastructure to make that one fully executable.

Because of the full operating system infrastructure that makes it very
easy to examine theory of computation problems in a high level language
my partial halt decider is easily extensible.

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

[olcott]

On 9/13/2020 6:18 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>

>> I don't believe that you really believe that I am lying and not simply
>> mistaken. I can see how it makes sense to believe that I am mistaken.
>
> Anyone who reads your posts from Dec 2018 can be in no doubt that when
> you said you had a fully encoded Turing machine you did not mean a
> "snippet of C like code" as you now claim. It is perfectly clear you
> meant a Turing machine as described in the book you keep referencing.
>

On 12/15/2018 1:28 AM, peteolcott wrote:
>
> I now have an actual H that decides actual halting
> for an actual (Ĥ, Ĥ) input pair. I have to write
> the UTM to execute this code, that should not take very
> long. The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100% fully
> encoded as actual Turing machines.

A more technically accurate update that includes actual execution:

*I will soon have a partial halt decider sufficiently equivalent
*to the Linz H correctly deciding halting on the Linz Ĥ proving
*that Ĥ on input Ĥ is halting decidable.

Recent primary research indicates that any C or x86 computation having
all the memory that it needs is equivalent to a Turing machine
computation in that it produces equivalent output for equivalent input
or fails to halt on equivalent input.

Since I know that you believe that I believe the above more technically
accurate claim and this new claim is a paraphrase of the original claim
your insistence that I have lied or am lying looks quite foolish.

Because I really do intend to seek publication in an academic journal I
must henceforth be very careful to use the technical terms of the art
accurately conveying their conventional meaning.

All that you have to do to get me to never call you a liar ever again it
make sure that all of your words very accurately convey objective truth
without bias.