Re: Mapping x86/x64/C to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation

Subject	Re: Mapping x86/x64/C to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation
Newsgroups	comp.theory
References	(2 earlier) <87eengdlvb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-Medna8Id_Yoas7CnZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7sbdctx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4CdnWc2VbpUpMnCnZ2dnUU7-efNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rj2vvs$naa$1@dont-email.me>
From	olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>
Date	2020-09-06 13:07 -0500
Message-ID	<Xq-dnQXPNfr-uMjCnZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/6/2020 10:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2020-09-05 19:22, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/5/2020 6:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> 
>>>> My whole purpose in doing this is to refute your objection that an x86
>>>> program correctly deciding halting on another x86 program constructed
>>>> from itself that implements the impossible to decide template of H_Hat
>>>> is not at all applicable to the actual Halting Problem proofs because
>>>> x86 machines are not Turing machines.
>>>
>>> How unfortunate.  I certainly never intended to say that.  I can't
>>> imagine why I would, since it's wrong.  In fact, I remember saying
>>> almost exactly the reverse: that Turing completeness does not matter.
>>> What you claim is impossible in sub-Turing-complete models, Turing
>>> complete ones, and even for oracle machines.  All that matters is that
>>> the "hat" construction is possible (some sub-Turing-complete models
>>> can't represent it at all, but you won't accidentally stumble on one of
>>> those).  Don't you remember that?
>>>
>>
>> That is great that you are saying that now. It is also cleared up so 
>> that anyone else making that objection can be refuted.
> 
> I suspect that this confusion arises from the fact that people were 
> objecting to using the term "Turing Machine" to refer to your x86 and/or 
> C programs. That usage is still incorrect. Even if you had written your 
> program in some variant of C which was Turing Complete, they still would 
> not be Turing Machines.
> 
> A result doesn't need to be expressed as a Turing Machine or in a Turing 
> Complete language to be significant. All that matters in this case is 
> that the relation between your H and your Ĥ actually has the same form 
> as Linz's once translated into the relevant language.
> 
> André
> 

Yes I showed that here:
http://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Diagrams.pdf

-- 
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 11:38 -0500
  Mapping x86/x64/C to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 11:41 -0500
    Re: Mapping x86/x64/C to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-05 21:11 +0100
      Re: Mapping x86/x64/C to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 15:40 -0500
        Re: Mapping x86/x64/C to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-06 00:27 +0100
          Re: Mapping x86/x64/C to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 20:22 -0500
            Re: Mapping x86/x64/C to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-06 09:41 -0600
              Re: Mapping x86/x64/C to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 13:07 -0500
  Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 11:01 -0700
    Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 13:26 -0500
      Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 11:43 -0700
        Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 14:33 -0500
          Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 12:53 -0700
            Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 15:26 -0500
  Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-09-08 11:18 -0600
    Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-08 12:30 -0500
      Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-09-08 14:48 -0600
        Re: Mapping "C" to a Turing equivalent abstract model of computation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-08 16:34 -0500

csiph-web