Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?
From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 08/12/04
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Next in thread: Simon G Best: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:58:54 -0400
Peter Olcott wrote:
> "Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:411A40D8.8040100@btopenworld.com...
>
>>Although I said I intended not to respond anymore, I am failing to
>>resist the temptation to respond.
>>
>>However, I shall attempt to include everything I wish to say at this
>>time in this one post, as I do not wish to resume contributing to the
>>clutter in these newsgroups.
>>
>>Peter Olcott wrote:
>>
>>>"Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:4118E438.90806@btopenworld.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Substantiate your claims.
>>>>
>>>>Provide a way for a Turing Machine to be able to determine whether or
>>>>not it was invoked as part of another Turing Machine, and we'll see if
>>>>it supports your claim to have refuted Turing's proof.
>>>>
>>>>Substantiate your claims.
>>
>>>This is now published on my website
>>>www.halting-problem.com
>>
>>The first thing to note is that the stuff on your website is not very
>>clear. I have noticed that some other respondents (as did I at first)
>>have taken the part which says, "/it/ merely looks up the action
>>associated with the state in /its/ state transition matrix table"
>>(emphasis mine), to mean that the modified UTM is looking at the "state
>>transition matrix table" of the modified UTM /itself/. What you
>>actually meant is that it looks at the "state transition matrix table"
>>for the /simulated/ TM.
>
>
> Nope that is not it. I must have the UTM tell me that it has no other
> state transitions that would be pending after the Halt function would
> execute its final state transition. I was envisioning the UTM as using
> its own tape and state transition matrix to directly execute any other
> TMs. This would mean that the execution of the UTM, and any
> other TM that it is invoking would form a single integrated finite
> automaton. As long as I know:
>
> (1) That there is no UTM state transition out of the halt analyzer's final state
> (the one that write the ONE to the tape).
>
> (2) The only state transition out of the halt function's final state is a sequence
> of state transitions (with no conditional or unconditional branches) that end
> in the UTM's final state.
>
> The UTM can easily provide this information from its own state transition
> matrix table.
Not if it depends on the result of the Halt TM.
>>In particular, you have not said /how/ a simulated TM, M, would actually
>>/ask/ your modified UTM about its own state transitions. Neither have
>
>
> This would just be a little mini TM that is an intregral part of the UTM.
> The Halt function would know its own final state (the one that would
> either write the SPACE or the ONE to a specified tape location).
> It could merely ask the UTM:
>
> if (TheStateAfterThisStateIsTheUTMsFinalState(HaltFunctionFinalState))
> WriteToTapeLocation(LocationNumber, ONE);
> else
> WriteToTapeLocation(LocationNumber, SPACE);
You are assuming that the UTM is guaranteed to do this independent of
what Halt produces.
-- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Next in thread: Simon G Best: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
