On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of
>>>>>>>>>> the truth of some expressions of language entirely on the
>>>>>>>>>> basis of the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>>>>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>>>>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>> is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Self-evident truths: (a & b)
>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.
>>>
>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of
>>> halting.
>>
>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is verified
>> as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>
>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> never reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is
>>>> aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of
>>>> its input and transitions to qn.
>>>
>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that
>>> allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>
>>
>
> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>
> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>
> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>
> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>
The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an actual
infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be correctly
determined to be an infinite loop.
As soon as the halt decider correctly determines that a pure simulation
of either an infinite loop or H(P,P) or Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never end then
it necessarily correctly stops this simulation and reports not halting
in both cases.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein