Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87141 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-10-23 15:59 +0100 |
| Last post | 2022-10-23 16:18 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Simulating halt deciders (SHDs) simply do not work; alas neither does Olcott. Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-23 15:59 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders (SHDs) simply do not work; alas neither does Olcott. Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-23 16:18 +0100
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-23 15:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Simulating halt deciders (SHDs) simply do not work; alas neither does Olcott. |
| Message-ID | <20221023155916.00004072@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
Hi! Simulating halt deciders (SHDs) simply do not work. Why? A turing machine should be able to implement ANY algorithm and as such it is an idealisation, an INFINITE STATE MACHINE (ISM) if you will. A simulating halt decider (SHD) can only over be implemented as a FINITE STATE MACHINE (FSM) so is not suitable for a) solving the halting problem or b) refuting the halting problem proofs. Olcott has wasted the last 18 years of his life with what he thinks he invented (SHDs). Alas the deluded dear hasn't even invented a halt decider, all he has invented is a particularly useless form of simulation detector. /Flibble
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-23 16:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221023161856.0000404a@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #87141 |
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 10:12:47 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > *Please do not post to comp.lang.c or you will kill it* > > On 10/23/2022 9:59 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Simulating halt deciders (SHDs) simply do not work. > > > > Why? A turing machine should be able to implement ANY algorithm and > > as such it is an idealisation, an INFINITE STATE MACHINE (ISM) if > > you will. > > The machine operates on an infinite[4] memory tape divided into > discrete cells,[5] each of which can hold a single symbol drawn from > a finite set of symbols called the alphabet of the machine. It has a > "head" that, at any point in the machine's operation, is positioned > over one of these cells, and a "state" selected from a *finite set of > states*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine Nope. I am including the tape as part of the machine's state just as we include machine memory as being part of an SHD's state. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web