Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 08/16/04
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: edens rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges: "Re: Halting Problem: Give up"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:36:41 -0400
Peter Olcott wrote:
> "Will Twentyman" <wtwentyman@read.my.sig> wrote in message news:411e5444$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>>Peter Olcott wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Will Twentyman" <wtwentyman@read.my.sig> wrote in message news:411acb3f$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Will Twentyman" <wtwentyman@read.my.sig> wrote in message news:411a4fba_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Definition of the Halting Problem
>>>>>There does not exist a Turing Machine that can correctly determine
>>>>>whether or not each and every element in the universal set of Turing
>>>>>Machines will execute in a finite number of steps
>>>>>
>>>>>I have correctly refuted the above Definition of the Halting Problem.
>>>>>No one else has ever done this until I just did it.
>>>>
>>>>The above definition isn't even accurate. You have to specify whether a
>>>>TM halts on a particular input.
>>>
>>>
>>>Although I agree with you on this point and updated my website
>>>so that it now includes this, Turing did not specify this in his proof.
>>
>>Actually, your website still allows for three outputs: ONE, ZERO, or SPACE.
>>
>
> www.halting-problem.com
> Its updated now.
Now you are talking about the following:
"The last step is the method by which the Halt analyzer can determine
its invocation context. This can be a very simple feature that is
implemented in the Universal Turing Machine. The Halt analyzer would
merely ask the UTM whether or not its specifically indicated final state
has any state transition defined. This information is very easy for the
UTM to provide, it merely looks up the action associated with the state
in its state transition matrix table. If there is no state transition
defined out of the Halt analyzer's final states, then the Halt analyzer
can know with certainty that it was not invoked as a part of another
Turing Machine's execution. It can use this information to determine
whether or not it can safely return a result, or that it must refrain
from returning a result."
My first comment is: the functionality you want to add means we are no
longer looking at Turing Machines, but some other type of machines. The
burden of proof falls to you to show whether or not these modified
machines have the same power as a traditional Turing Machine. They may
have more, less, or the same. Secondly, you state that "This
information is very easy for the UTM to provide," but don't specify how,
or what happens if it lies. Until a few more details are provided, it
is quite difficult to determine what is actually going on. What you
have right now is a sketch of what you want a proof to look like. Until
you fill in some more details, such as precise definitions, it is not a
proof.
-- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: edens rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges: "Re: Halting Problem: Give up"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
