On 8/2/2024 7:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:--
Definition: A TM P given input I is said to "halt" iff ?????
or whatever...
I think this is a rather hopeless venture without
formally defining the representation of a TM. For
example: In some formulations, there are specific
states defined as "halting states" and the machine
only halts if either the start state is a halt state or
there is a transition to a halt state within the execution
trace; In another formulation, machines halt if there
is a transition to an undefined state. Note a few things:
1) the if's above are really iff's, 2) these and many
other definitions all have equivalent computing prowess,
3) Some formulations define results by what is left on
the tape (or other storage device) while others add the
actual halting state to determine the results.
In a conversation about such topics, gentlemen of good
faith and reasonable knowledge can simple ignore these
differences and not go off the rails.
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state.
On 10/09/2025 12:31, olcott wrote:
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state.
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
On 9/10/2025 6:38 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 12:31, olcott wrote:
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state.
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,Halt::= A TM state that no transition is defined.
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state. page 1990:234 Linz
Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 8/2/2024 7:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
;
Definition: A TM P given input I is said to "halt" iff ?????
or whatever...
I think this is a rather hopeless venture without
formally defining the representation of a TM. For
example: In some formulations, there are specific
states defined as "halting states" and the machine
only halts if either the start state is a halt state or
there is a transition to a halt state within the execution
trace; In another formulation, machines halt if there
is a transition to an undefined state. Note a few things:
1) the if's above are really iff's, 2) these and many
other definitions all have equivalent computing prowess,
3) Some formulations define results by what is left on
the tape (or other storage device) while others add the
actual halting state to determine the results.
In a conversation about such topics, gentlemen of good
faith and reasonable knowledge can simple ignore these
differences and not go off the rails.
On 10/09/2025 12:45, olcott wrote:
On 9/10/2025 6:38 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 12:31, olcott wrote:
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state.
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
I'll take that as a "no",
in which case either the definition is in
error (in which case it shouldn't be used) or your understanding of it
is flawed (in which case we still don't have a mutual understanding of
what halting means).
Wake us when you come up with a definition of halting in which DD halts.
$ cat dd.c
#include <stdio.h>
#define HHH(x) !printf("Simulation bullshit" \
" would happen here.\n\n")
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
int hhh;
int dd;
printf("Let's try the simulearlier first. HHH(DD)\n");
hhh = HHH(DD);
printf("Now for the simulater. DD().\n");
dd = DD();
printf("Because we got here, we know that both HHH and DD halted.\n");
printf("But is that what they claim?\n\n");
printf("HHH(DD) yields %d (%s).\n",
hhh,
hhh ?
"halted" :
"incorrect claim of non-halting");
printf("DD yields %d (%s).\n",
dd,
dd ?
"halted" :
"incorrect claim of non-halting");
return 0;
}
$ gcc -o dd dd.c
$ ./dd
Let's try the simulearlier first. HHH(DD)
Simulation bullshit would happen here.
Now for the simulater. DD().
Simulation bullshit would happen here.
Because we got here, we know that both HHH and DD halted.
But is that what they claim?
HHH(DD) yields 0 (incorrect claim of non-halting).
DD yields 0 (incorrect claim of non-halting).
So DD halts.
On 9/10/2025 6:54 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 12:45, olcott wrote:
On 9/10/2025 6:38 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 12:31, olcott wrote:
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state.
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
I'll take that as a "no",
I didn't say no.
On 10/09/2025 16:02, olcott wrote:
On 9/10/2025 6:54 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 12:45, olcott wrote:
On 9/10/2025 6:38 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 12:31, olcott wrote:
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state.
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
I'll take that as a "no",
I didn't say no.
You didn't say yes, either.
It's like you're trying to avoid answering without it /looking/ as if
you're trying to avoid answering.
"Eventually, the whole process may terminate, which we achieve in
a Turing machine by putting it into a halt state. A Turing
machine is said to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because δ is a partial
function. In fact, we will assume that no transitions are defined
for any final state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state."
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
On 9/10/2025 10:09 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
I'll take that as a "no",
I didn't say no.
You didn't say yes, either.
It's like you're trying to avoid answering without it /looking/
as if you're trying to avoid answering.
I have addressed this hundreds of times.
If you are going to keep ignoring everything
that I say then I will stop saying it.
On 10/09/2025 16:22, olcott wrote:
On 9/10/2025 10:09 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<attr's back and forth>
<snip>
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
I'll take that as a "no",
I didn't say no.
You didn't say yes, either.
It's like you're trying to avoid answering without it /looking/ as if
you're trying to avoid answering.
I have addressed this hundreds of times.
If you are going to keep ignoring everything
that I say then I will stop saying it.
Another evasion. If you're not going to answer the question, why bother posting?
One last chance.
"Eventually, the whole process may terminate, which we achieve in
a Turing machine by putting it into a halt state. A Turing
machine is said to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because δ is a partial
function. In fact, we will assume that no transitions are defined
for any final state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state."
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
On 9/10/2025 10:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 16:22, olcott wrote:
On 9/10/2025 10:09 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<attr's back and forth>
<snip>
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
I'll take that as a "no",
I didn't say no.
You didn't say yes, either.
It's like you're trying to avoid answering without it /
looking/ as if you're trying to avoid answering.
I have addressed this hundreds of times.
If you are going to keep ignoring everything
that I say then I will stop saying it.
Another evasion. If you're not going to answer the question,
why bother posting?
One last chance.
"Eventually, the whole process may terminate, which we achieve in
a Turing machine by putting it into a halt state. A Turing
machine is said to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because δ is a partial
function. In fact, we will assume that no transitions are defined
for any final state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state."
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
DD() is none of the f-cking business of HHH
On 10/09/2025 16:54, olcott wrote:
On 9/10/2025 10:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 16:22, olcott wrote:
On 9/10/2025 10:09 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<attr's back and forth>
<snip>
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
I'll take that as a "no",
I didn't say no.
You didn't say yes, either.
It's like you're trying to avoid answering without it / looking/ as >>>>> if you're trying to avoid answering.
I have addressed this hundreds of times.
If you are going to keep ignoring everything
that I say then I will stop saying it.
Another evasion. If you're not going to answer the question, why
bother posting?
One last chance.
"Eventually, the whole process may terminate, which we achieve in
a Turing machine by putting it into a halt state. A Turing
machine is said to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because δ is a partial
function. In fact, we will assume that no transitions are defined
for any final state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state."
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
DD() is none of the f-cking business of HHH
Learn to read. I asked you about DD, not HHH. Three times now. I'm
beginning to think you don't know how to answer.
But en passant your concession is noted that HHH is not a decider for DD (because if HHH were a decider for DD then DD would very much be HHH's business).
On 9/10/2025 11:03 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:<attr's back and forth>
By this definition, is it your opinion that DD halts?
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
I'll take that as a "no",
I didn't say no.
You didn't say yes, either.
It's like you're trying to avoid answering without it /
looking/ as if you're trying to avoid answering.
I have addressed this hundreds of times.
If you are going to keep ignoring everything
that I say then I will stop saying it.
opinion that DD halts?Another evasion. If you're not going to answer the question,
why bother posting?
One last chance.
"Eventually, the whole process may terminate, which we
achieve in a Turing machine by putting it into a halt
state. A Turing machine is said to halt whenever it reaches a
configuration for which δ is not defined; this is
possible because δ is a partial function. In fact, we
will assume that no transitions are defined for any
final state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state." By this definition, is it your
DD() is none of the f-cking business of HHH
Learn to read. I asked you about DD, not HHH. Three times now.
I'm beginning to think you don't know how to answer.
It has been a mistake for 89 years to think
that behavior of DD() has any relevance to
the halting problem proof.
When DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation
WE MUST REPORT ON THIS BEHAVIOR AND NOT KEEP
F-CKING IGNORING IT.
But en passant your concession is noted that HHH is not a
decider for DD (because if HHH were a decider for DD then DD
would very much be HHH's business).
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
On 10/09/2025 17:24, olcott wrote:
When DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation
WE MUST REPORT ON THIS BEHAVIOR AND NOT KEEP
F-CKING IGNORING IT.
You claimed that DD is none of HHH's business.
In which case HHH is not a decider for DD.
On 9/10/2025 12:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 17:24, olcott wrote:HHH is only supposed to COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM ITS INPUT DD() IS NOT
When DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation WE MUST REPORT ON THIS
BEHAVIOR AND NOT KEEP F-CKING IGNORING IT.
You claimed that DD is none of HHH's business.
In which case HHH is not a decider for DD.
AN INPUT COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM ITS INPUT DD() IS NOT AN INPUT COMPUTE
THE MAPPING FROM ITS INPUT DD() IS NOT AN INPUT COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM
ITS INPUT DD() IS NOT AN INPUT
On 9/10/2025 12:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/09/2025 17:24, olcott wrote:
When DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation
WE MUST REPORT ON THIS BEHAVIOR AND NOT KEEP
F-CKING IGNORING IT.
You claimed that DD is none of HHH's business.
In which case HHH is not a decider for DD.
HHH is only supposed to
COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM ITS INPUT DD() IS NOT AN INPUT
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state. page 1990:234 Linz
Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)
On 2025-09-10 11:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state. page 1990:234 Linz
Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)
I stated in news:109ojic$ract$1@dont-email.me that "About Turing
machines it means a configuration for which the rules don't specfy
any action." Above Linz says the same.
On 8/2/2024 7:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:--
Definition: A TM P given input I is said to "halt" iff ?????
or whatever...
I think this is a rather hopeless venture without
formally defining the representation of a TM. For
example: In some formulations, there are specific
states defined as "halting states" and the machine
only halts if either the start state is a halt state or
there is a transition to a halt state within the execution
trace; In another formulation, machines halt if there
is a transition to an undefined state. Note a few things:
1) the if's above are really iff's, 2) these and many
other definitions all have equivalent computing prowess,
3) Some formulations define results by what is left on
the tape (or other storage device) while others add the
actual halting state to determine the results.
In a conversation about such topics, gentlemen of good
faith and reasonable knowledge can simple ignore these
differences and not go off the rails.
On 9/11/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-10 11:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state. page 1990:234 Linz
Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)
I stated in news:109ojic$ract$1@dont-email.me that "About Turing
machines it means a configuration for which the rules don't specfy
any action." Above Linz says the same.
And also says the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state.
On 2025-09-11 15:48:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/11/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-10 11:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state. page 1990:234 Linz
Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)
I stated in news:109ojic$ract$1@dont-email.me that "About Turing
machines it means a configuration for which the rules don't specfy
any action." Above Linz says the same.
And also says the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state.
That is obvious when "final state" is defined as a state where
the Turing machine halts.
But Linz does not say that as a part of the definition of halting.
After the definition he says he assumes that in his Turing machine
every state has rules for either every or no tape symbol. Other
author permit and in some cases requite that a Turing machine has
a state that has a rule for some but not all possible tape symbols,
and call such states as "reject" states.
But in any case, as Linz says, "said to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for which δ is not defined", where δ is the partial
function that determines the next configuration of the Turing
machine. That agrees with the usual meaning of "halt".
On 8/2/2024 7:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:--
Definition: A TM P given input I is said to "halt" iff ?????
or whatever...
I think this is a rather hopeless venture without
formally defining the representation of a TM. For
example: In some formulations, there are specific
states defined as "halting states" and the machine
only halts if either the start state is a halt state or
there is a transition to a halt state within the execution
trace; In another formulation, machines halt if there
is a transition to an undefined state. Note a few things:
1) the if's above are really iff's, 2) these and many
other definitions all have equivalent computing prowess,
3) Some formulations define results by what is left on
the tape (or other storage device) while others add the
actual halting state to determine the results.
In a conversation about such topics, gentlemen of good
faith and reasonable knowledge can simple ignore these
differences and not go off the rails.
On 9/12/2025 1:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-11 15:48:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/11/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-10 11:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
Eventually, the whole process may terminate,
which we achieve in a Turing machine by putting
it into a halt state. A Turing machine is said
to halt whenever it reaches a configuration for
which δ is not defined; this is possible because
δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume
that no transitions are defined for any final
state, so the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state. page 1990:234 Linz
Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. >>>>> Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)
I stated in news:109ojic$ract$1@dont-email.me that "About Turing
machines it means a configuration for which the rules don't specfy
any action." Above Linz says the same.
And also says the Turing machine will halt whenever
it enters a final state.
That is obvious when "final state" is defined as a state where
the Turing machine halts.
But Linz does not say that as a part of the definition of halting.
After the definition he says he assumes that in his Turing machine
every state has rules for either every or no tape symbol. Other
author permit and in some cases requite that a Turing machine has
a state that has a rule for some but not all possible tape symbols,
and call such states as "reject" states.
But in any case, as Linz says, "said to halt whenever it reaches a
configuration for which δ is not defined", where δ is the partial
function that determines the next configuration of the Turing
machine. That agrees with the usual meaning of "halt".
This is our own Jeff, make sure you read his
last paragraph
On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 8/2/2024 7:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
Definition: A TM P given input I is said to "halt" iff ?????
or whatever...
I think this is a rather hopeless venture without
formally defining the representation of a TM. For
example: In some formulations, there are specific
states defined as "halting states" and the machine
only halts if either the start state is a halt state or
there is a transition to a halt state within the execution
trace; In another formulation, machines halt if there
is a transition to an undefined state. Note a few things:
1) the if's above are really iff's, 2) these and many
other definitions all have equivalent computing prowess,
3) Some formulations define results by what is left on
the tape (or other storage device) while others add the
actual halting state to determine the results.
In a conversation about such topics, gentlemen of good
faith and reasonable knowledge can simple ignore these
differences and not go off the rails.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,069 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 82:55:26 |
| Calls: | 13,728 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 186,961 |
| D/L today: |
5,757 files (1,516M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,416,616 |