Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The problem with using Turing machines to study the theory of computation
21 views
Skip to first unread message
olcott
Aug 28, 2022, 3:47:33 PM8/28/22
to
Since Turing machines are mathematical objects that only exist in the
mind people can have contradictory thus incoherent ideas about these
abstract mathematical objects and never realize that their ideas are
incoherent.
When we study the theory of computation using physically existing
machines such as the x86 architecture then the incoherent abstract ideas
are shown to be incoherent in that they cannot be physically implemented.
void Px(ptr x)
{
H(x, x);
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(Px, Px));
}
If a decider must always return a value whenever it is called this
requires H to return a value to Px even though H is called in infinite
recursion.
This even requires that the function call from Px to H(Px,Px) must
return a value to Px even if this function call to H is not even
executed. In the physical model of computation it is an axiom the
programs that are not executed never return values because it is
physically impossible.
When simulating halt decider H sees that Px is about to call H(Px,Px) in
infinite recursion H aborts its simulation of Px before this call is
executed.
*Clearly computer science is incorrect on this point*
Computer science says that H must still return a value to Px even though
the call to H is not even executed because all deciders must ALWAYS
return to their caller.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
mind people can have contradictory thus incoherent ideas about these
abstract mathematical objects and never realize that their ideas are
incoherent.
When we study the theory of computation using physically existing
machines such as the x86 architecture then the incoherent abstract ideas
are shown to be incoherent in that they cannot be physically implemented.
void Px(ptr x)
{
H(x, x);
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(Px, Px));
}
If a decider must always return a value whenever it is called this
requires H to return a value to Px even though H is called in infinite
recursion.
This even requires that the function call from Px to H(Px,Px) must
return a value to Px even if this function call to H is not even
executed. In the physical model of computation it is an axiom the
programs that are not executed never return values because it is
physically impossible.
When simulating halt decider H sees that Px is about to call H(Px,Px) in
infinite recursion H aborts its simulation of Px before this call is
executed.
*Clearly computer science is incorrect on this point*
Computer science says that H must still return a value to Px even though
the call to H is not even executed because all deciders must ALWAYS
return to their caller.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
olcott
Aug 28, 2022, 11:12:16 PM8/28/22
to
On 8/28/2022 9:57 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 29/08/2022 01:01, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/28/2022 5:20 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 8/28/2022 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <SNIP> idiotic posted.
>>>
>>> Since you couldn't even write a TM that decides if a number, base
>>> one, was even or odd, how do you justify a thread with this title?
>>>
>>
>> I told you I was very sick from chemo therapy.
>> Would it help my credibility if I finished this?
>
> I rather doubt that, but there's a chance that you might /learn/
> something about TMs and how they are used if you completed Ben's
> program. Simply learning about TMs won't specifically help your
> credibility though, unless it leads you to recognise the problems with
> your current claims and withdraw them. That /would/ improve your
> credibility somewhat, but only in a "negative negative" sort of way.
> (I'm guessing you'd still be claiming to have refuted all sorts of other
> things, which would still mark you as a crank for most readers. And
> besides I don't see anything Ben is going to try to teach you as likely
> to cause you to withdraw any of your claims.)
>
> Just writing the one TM to decide even numbers in itself won't help your
> credibility much, because I imagine most people are already prepared to
> believe you could do that with appropriate effort.
>
> I've just had the thought that perhaps you believe people reject your
> claims because you lack credibility as an expert : if only you "had more
> credibility" then the things you say would transform magically from
> nonsense into correctly proven claims? That doesn't make ANY sense, but
> perhaps its how you view the world... Are you thinking if you
> demonstrate a simple programming task, your already spoken words will
> start being interpreted differently? That's not going to happen.
>
>>
>> I have been in the middle of fully translating
>> my system to Linux. I have most of this done now.
>
> None of that will further your goals of publishing in a reputable
> peer-reviewd journal ONE IOTA! Neither will wasting the rest of your
> life arguing with people here in comp.theory! You will simply die one
> day, then the world will just forget you (as it forgets 99.9999% of
> us...) and carry on.
>
> Seriously - if your true aim is for your work to be remembered, you need
> to actually present it to a publisher. Forget about porting stuff to
> Linux, or building exercise TMs or even arguing interminably on
> comp.theory - unless really you're just looking to use up remaining time
> and bow out comfortably... [the latter is actually not an unreasonable
> path for you]
>
>
> Mike.
I can't possibly publish *UNTIL AFTER I AM UNDERSTOOD*
If people fully understood what I am saying then they would understand
that that the dogma of computer science textbooks that say that H(P,P)
must base its halt status decision on the behavior of P(P) is incorrect.
They have to very carefully to go through every single detail of my
explanation of exactly how and why it is incorrect and
*utterly stop short-circuiting to the dogma*
*utterly stop short-circuiting to the dogma*
*utterly stop short-circuiting to the dogma*
One of the ways that they short circuit is to say that it is a
definition thus cannot be incorrect. A definition can be incorrect
*only* when it directly contradicts other correct definitions.
> On 29/08/2022 01:01, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/28/2022 5:20 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 8/28/2022 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <SNIP> idiotic posted.
>>>
>>> Since you couldn't even write a TM that decides if a number, base
>>> one, was even or odd, how do you justify a thread with this title?
>>>
>>
>> I told you I was very sick from chemo therapy.
>> Would it help my credibility if I finished this?
>
> I rather doubt that, but there's a chance that you might /learn/
> something about TMs and how they are used if you completed Ben's
> program. Simply learning about TMs won't specifically help your
> credibility though, unless it leads you to recognise the problems with
> your current claims and withdraw them. That /would/ improve your
> credibility somewhat, but only in a "negative negative" sort of way.
> (I'm guessing you'd still be claiming to have refuted all sorts of other
> things, which would still mark you as a crank for most readers. And
> besides I don't see anything Ben is going to try to teach you as likely
> to cause you to withdraw any of your claims.)
>
> Just writing the one TM to decide even numbers in itself won't help your
> credibility much, because I imagine most people are already prepared to
> believe you could do that with appropriate effort.
>
> I've just had the thought that perhaps you believe people reject your
> claims because you lack credibility as an expert : if only you "had more
> credibility" then the things you say would transform magically from
> nonsense into correctly proven claims? That doesn't make ANY sense, but
> perhaps its how you view the world... Are you thinking if you
> demonstrate a simple programming task, your already spoken words will
> start being interpreted differently? That's not going to happen.
>
>>
>> I have been in the middle of fully translating
>> my system to Linux. I have most of this done now.
>
> None of that will further your goals of publishing in a reputable
> peer-reviewd journal ONE IOTA! Neither will wasting the rest of your
> life arguing with people here in comp.theory! You will simply die one
> day, then the world will just forget you (as it forgets 99.9999% of
> us...) and carry on.
>
> Seriously - if your true aim is for your work to be remembered, you need
> to actually present it to a publisher. Forget about porting stuff to
> Linux, or building exercise TMs or even arguing interminably on
> comp.theory - unless really you're just looking to use up remaining time
> and bow out comfortably... [the latter is actually not an unreasonable
> path for you]
>
>
> Mike.
I can't possibly publish *UNTIL AFTER I AM UNDERSTOOD*
If people fully understood what I am saying then they would understand
that that the dogma of computer science textbooks that say that H(P,P)
must base its halt status decision on the behavior of P(P) is incorrect.
They have to very carefully to go through every single detail of my
explanation of exactly how and why it is incorrect and
*utterly stop short-circuiting to the dogma*
*utterly stop short-circuiting to the dogma*
*utterly stop short-circuiting to the dogma*
One of the ways that they short circuit is to say that it is a
definition thus cannot be incorrect. A definition can be incorrect
*only* when it directly contradicts other correct definitions.
Juha Nieminen
Aug 29, 2022, 7:24:29 AM8/29/22
to
In comp.lang.c++ olcott <No...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Since Turing machines are mathematical objects that only exist in the
> mind people can have contradictory thus incoherent ideas about these
> abstract mathematical objects and never realize that their ideas are
> incoherent.
>
> When we study the theory of computation using physically existing
> machines such as the x86 architecture then the incoherent abstract ideas
> are shown to be incoherent in that they cannot be physically implemented.
You can't limit yourself to a particular computer architecture because if
> Since Turing machines are mathematical objects that only exist in the
> mind people can have contradictory thus incoherent ideas about these
> abstract mathematical objects and never realize that their ideas are
> incoherent.
>
> When we study the theory of computation using physically existing
> machines such as the x86 architecture then the incoherent abstract ideas
> are shown to be incoherent in that they cannot be physically implemented.
you do, then your results are useless.
If, for example, we limit ourselves to the x86 computer architecture, then
in principle every single algorithm is technically either O(1) or can't be
computed. Which is a completely useless result.
olcott
Aug 29, 2022, 2:02:23 PM8/29/22
to
merely imagined and never concretely demonstrated it is possible to
imaging that a decider must return a result to every caller even in the
case where the function call is not even executed.
When we move to a concrete model of computation we know that it is
utterly ridiculous that a program that is never executed produces any
output. From this we can know that decider are not supposed to return
any values when a function call to them is never actually executed.
void P(ptr x)
{
H(x, x);
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
H(x, x);
return;
}
int main()
{
}
_Px()
[00001102](01) 55 push ebp
[00001103](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001105](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001108](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001109](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000110c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000110d](05) e880fdffff call 00000e92 // call H
[00001112](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001115](01) 5d pop ebp
[00001116](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001116]
H aborts its simulation of P as soon as H sees that P would call H at
machine address [0000110d] before this call is even executed.
According to what two people have said computer science requires
deciders to return values to their callers even if the call is never
executed.
0 new messages