On May 31, 11:39 pm, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > On May 30, 10:53 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 31, 10:01 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > > > > On May 30, 3:22 am, "INFINITY POWER" <infin...@limited.com> wrote: > > > > > The Halting Conjecture is merely a moronic statement that we already knew > > > > about a Halt function that works on every function except itself. > > > > You're an IDIOT. Saying that you have a Halt function that works on > > > every function except itself > > > is LIKE saying you have a number that's larger than every number > > > except itself. IT ISN'T, DUMBASS. > > > No it's like using an axiom of REGULARITY, no cyclic HALT() network! > > You DON'T GET to suspend the axiom of regularity IN THE CONTEXT OF THE > NATURAL NUMBERS.
WE ARE *INVOKING* A.O.R. in the model of computation.
> There really is a STARTING natural number (0) and there really is a > SIMPLEST program (Halt). > Foundation and regularity REALLY ARE REAL in a context where all the > programs HAVE to have a natural number of > states and every cell on the tape HAS to have a natural number as its > position and the alphabet HAS to have a natural > number of characters and every time-step HAS to be a natural number of > steps after start. > The fact that you don't cycle is a consequence of the fact that you > CAN'T go INFINITELY far IN EITHER the before OR AFTER > directions, and although there is no pre-set limit as to how far you > can go "after", THERE IS one as to how far you can go "before". > Regularity HAPPENS in this context and you do NOT get to relax it to > something MERELY acylical. *NOT* THAT *YOU* WOULD EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT > WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THIS CONTEXT, IN ANY CASE. >
WE ARE *NOT* disputing the HALT CONJECTURE.
BUT- the ACTUAL INTERPRETATION in context is merely that
HALT() IS NOT A REFELEXIVE FUNCTION
This is a limit of scope, not computability or possibility.
> > > > > In ADDITION to not being larger than itself, it IS ALSO not larger > > > than THE INFINITELY MANY numbers > > > that ARE GREATER than itself. Any TM-computable function HAS A FINITE > > > code-string and A FINITE > > > number of states! THERE ARE *ALWAYS* going to be INFINITELY MANY > > > BIGGER, BADDER programs > > > with MORE states and DEEPER chains of recursion and LONGER code- > > > strings whose behavior IS TOO complex > > > for ANY ONE PRE-chosen program to analyze! > > > > Dumbass. > > > Here's a more Procedural syntax than BLACK BOX Turing Machines.. > > Nobody CARES, dumbass. TMs can do ANYthing (that anything else, that > actually exists, can do). > No alternatives is NEEDED, therefore no alternative is relevant. More > to the point, TMs ARE NOT "black box". > TMs come WITH a whole MATRIX of state-transitions. YOU CAN SEE > INSIDE the box, for TMs. > IF you are going to talk "black box" then you are talking about the > opposite of TMs, not about TMs.
Not at all, finite automata is defined as a black box with an input string and output result.
TMs are an extension of black box automata only.
You are merely defining computation into a corner.
IF you use TM's fine, but you are not talking about THAT TM, you are talking about the 2 PROCESSES that the 1 core TM must emulate.
BASICALLY YOU HAVE A RULE OF COMPETITION - A CLAIM
|ZFC| > |TM|
|MATHS EXPRESSIONS| > |COMPUTABLE EXPRESSIONS|
THEN YOU, AS THE SELF ADJUDICATORS, ALSO MAKE_THE_RULES!