Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
that always appends the machine description of the simulated
Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.

The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.

This is followed by the machine description of the machine
that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>
> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>
> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>

So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work right
as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on its tape.

One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property of
Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as Turing
Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input. (There can be
no hidden inputs).

Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property, we need to qualify ALL
results demonstrated that need to be able to prove that the input
declaired and the actual inputs used match.

On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>
>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>
>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>
>
> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work right
> as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on its tape.

No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.

> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property of
> Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as Turing
> Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input. (There can be
> no hidden inputs).

*You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
The input is not hidden.

> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,

Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
input on every tape.

Especially recently your reviews have been very helpful.

Just like ChatGPT debugged my words so that they were
100% clear you are doing this same thing.

> we need to qualify ALL
> results demonstrated that need to be able to prove that the input
> declaired and the actual inputs used match.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>
>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>
>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>
>>
>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work right
>> as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on its tape.
>
> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.

So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the machine or
not?

What requires me to use the UTM?

>
>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property of
>> Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as Turing
>> Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input. (There can
>> be no hidden inputs).
>
> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
> The input is not hidden.

So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated that
include a description of the decider?

Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.

>
>> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,
>
> Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
> input on every tape.

In other words, Olcott machine can only compute functions that include
the description of the machine as its last input?

Sound pretty weak to me.

>
> Especially recently your reviews have been very helpful.
>
> Just like ChatGPT debugged my words so that they were
> 100% clear you are doing this same thing.
>
>> we need to qualify ALL results demonstrated that need to be able to
>> prove that the input declaired and the actual inputs used match.
>

On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>
>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>
>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work
>>> right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on its tape.
>>
>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>
> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the machine or
> not?
>
> What requires me to use the UTM?

Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.

>>
>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property of
>>> Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as Turing
>>> Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input. (There can
>>> be no hidden inputs).
>>
>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>> The input is not hidden.
>
> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated that
> include a description of the decider?
>
> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.

A machine's own machine description is always available
to it and can be ignored.

>>
>>> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,
>>
>> Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
>> input on every tape.
>
> In other words, Olcott machine can only compute functions that include
> the description of the machine as its last input?
>
> Sound pretty weak to me.
>

A machine's own machine description is always available
to it and can be ignored. When it is ignored an Olcott
machine <is> a Turing machine.

>>
>> Especially recently your reviews have been very helpful.
>>
>> Just like ChatGPT debugged my words so that they were
>> 100% clear you are doing this same thing.
>>
>>> we need to qualify ALL results demonstrated that need to be able to
>>> prove that the input declaired and the actual inputs used match.
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/6/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work
>>>> right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on its
>>>> tape.
>>>
>>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
>>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>>
>> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the machine
>> or not?
>>
>> What requires me to use the UTM?
>
> Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.

Why?

What stops the standard Turing Environment from executing it?

And why does it matter?

>
>>>
>>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property of
>>>> Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as Turing
>>>> Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input. (There
>>>> can be no hidden inputs).
>>>
>>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>>> The input is not hidden.
>>
>> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated that
>> include a description of the decider?
>>
>> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.
>
> A machine's own machine description is always available
> to it and can be ignored.

Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored, and
thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.

So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider (and
few real problems would) then the requirement will include for ALL
possible descriptions being given to the decider.

Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.

It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.

>
>>>
>>>> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,
>>>
>>> Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
>>> input on every tape.
>>
>> In other words, Olcott machine can only compute functions that include
>> the description of the machine as its last input?
>>
>> Sound pretty weak to me.
>>
>
> A machine's own machine description is always available
> to it and can be ignored. When it is ignored an Olcott
> machine <is> a Turing machine.

Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored, and
thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.

So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider (and
few real problems would) then the requirement will include for ALL
possible descriptions being given to the decider.

Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.

It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.

>
>>>
>>> Especially recently your reviews have been very helpful.
>>>
>>> Just like ChatGPT debugged my words so that they were
>>> 100% clear you are doing this same thing.
>>>
>>>> we need to qualify ALL results demonstrated that need to be able to
>>>> prove that the input declaired and the actual inputs used match.
>>>
>>
>

On 3/6/2024 11:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/6/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work
>>>>> right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on its
>>>>> tape.
>>>>
>>>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
>>>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>>>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>>>
>>> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the machine
>>> or not?
>>>
>>> What requires me to use the UTM?
>>
>> Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.
>
> Why?
>
> What stops the standard Turing Environment from executing it?
>
> And why does it matter?

It must be 100% impossible for a machine to not have access
to its own machine description thus defining a new class of
machines that are entirely based on Turing Machines.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property of
>>>>> Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as Turing
>>>>> Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input. (There
>>>>> can be no hidden inputs).
>>>>
>>>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>>>> The input is not hidden.
>>>
>>> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated that
>>> include a description of the decider?
>>>
>>> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.
>>
>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>> to it and can be ignored.
>
> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored, and
> thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>

Every machine is free to choose to examine it or ignore it.

> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider (and
> few real problems would) then the requirement will include for ALL
> possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>

No. The machine that choose to ignore it are ordinary Turing machines.
Termination analyzers that access their machine description can detect
when that are about to simulate a copy of their own machine description
with a copy of their own input.

> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ trivially detects recursive simulation when it has
access to the machine description of Ĥ at the end of its own tape.

> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,
>>>>
>>>> Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
>>>> input on every tape.
>>>
>>> In other words, Olcott machine can only compute functions that
>>> include the description of the machine as its last input?
>>>
>>> Sound pretty weak to me.
>>>
>>
>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>> to it and can be ignored. When it is ignored an Olcott
>> machine <is> a Turing machine.
>
> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored, and
> thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.

The Turing Machine Description input to the master UTM is encoded to
look at its own machine description or not.

>
> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider (and
> few real problems would) then the requirement will include for ALL
> possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>

We can arbitrary always construe it as a mapping from its input
including its own machine description to its return value
even in the cases where it ignores its own machine description.

> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>
> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Especially recently your reviews have been very helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Just like ChatGPT debugged my words so that they were
>>>> 100% clear you are doing this same thing.
>>>>
>>>>> we need to qualify ALL results demonstrated that need to be able to
>>>>> prove that the input declaired and the actual inputs used match.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/6/2024 11:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/6/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work
>>>>> right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on its
>>>>> tape.
>>>>
>>>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
>>>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>>>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>>>
>>> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the machine
>>> or not?
>>>
>>> What requires me to use the UTM?
>>
>> Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.
>
> Why?
>
> What stops the standard Turing Environment from executing it?
>
> And why does it matter?

I already answered this many times. It must be 100% perfectly impossible
for a machine to not have access to its own machine description.

A Turing machine could cheat on this. A machine that cannot possibly run
unless it is simulated by a specific UTM cannot possibly cheat.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property of
>>>>> Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as Turing
>>>>> Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input. (There
>>>>> can be no hidden inputs).
>>>>
>>>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>>>> The input is not hidden.
>>>
>>> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated that
>>> include a description of the decider?
>>>
>>> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.
>>
>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>> to it and can be ignored.
>
> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored, and
> thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.

The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
There is no need for a separate flag.

>
> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider (and
> few real problems would) then the requirement will include for ALL
> possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>

The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
Description (STMD) input and itself.

> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>

The Linz Ĥ is a template of an infinite number of machines.
I cannot afford to change the subject until Linz is proven wrong.

> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,
>>>>
>>>> Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
>>>> input on every tape.
>>>
>>> In other words, Olcott machine can only compute functions that
>>> include the description of the machine as its last input?
>>>
>>> Sound pretty weak to me.
>>>
>>
>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>> to it and can be ignored. When it is ignored an Olcott
>> machine <is> a Turing machine.
>
> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored, and
> thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>

The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
There is no need for a separate flag.

> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider (and
> few real problems would) then the requirement will include for ALL
> possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>

The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
Description (STMD) input and itself.

> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>
> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>

The Linz Ĥ is a template of an infinite number of machines.
I cannot afford to change the subject until Linz is proven wrong.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Especially recently your reviews have been very helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Just like ChatGPT debugged my words so that they were
>>>> 100% clear you are doing this same thing.
>>>>
>>>>> we need to qualify ALL results demonstrated that need to be able to
>>>>> prove that the input declaired and the actual inputs used match.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/6/24 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2024 11:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work
>>>>>> right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on its
>>>>>> tape.
>>>>>
>>>>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
>>>>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>>>>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>>>>
>>>> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the
>>>> machine or not?
>>>>
>>>> What requires me to use the UTM?
>>>
>>> Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> What stops the standard Turing Environment from executing it?
>>
>> And why does it matter?
>
> It must be 100% impossible for a machine to not have access
> to its own machine description thus defining a new class of
> machines that are entirely based on Turing Machines.

But your definition doesn't actually make that happen.

So, you have a problem.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property
>>>>>> of Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as
>>>>>> Turing Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input.
>>>>>> (There can be no hidden inputs).
>>>>>
>>>>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>>>>> The input is not hidden.
>>>>
>>>> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated
>>>> that include a description of the decider?
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.
>>>
>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>> to it and can be ignored.
>>
>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored,
>> and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>>
>
> Every machine is free to choose to examine it or ignore it.

But since it has been given to it, when you analyize it, you must
consider that it COULD have used it.

Thus, you have LOST the property that the algorithm COULDN'T have
dependend on it, and thus, if the mapping doesn't depend on it, the
conditions to test to see that the machine does do the right mapping
must define that it can not.

>
>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider
>> (and few real problems would) then the requirement will include for
>> ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>
>
> No. The machine that choose to ignore it are ordinary Turing machines.
> Termination analyzers that access their machine description can detect
> when that are about to simulate a copy of their own machine description
> with a copy of their own input.
>

Nope. You are apparently too stupid to understand the problem.

In fact, because you mention that Halt Decider can use it, but the
Halting Mapping doesn't depend on the decider, that means that your Halt
Deciders fail to match the mapping.

So, you are shown to be just lying or stupid or both.

>> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
>> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>>
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn     // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ trivially detects recursive simulation when it has
> access to the machine description of Ĥ at the end of its own tape.

Only if the copy that H^ did preserved the description of the machine it
was copying. It could renumber some of the states to make the
description not matck but the algorithm still match.

>
>> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,
>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
>>>>> input on every tape.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, Olcott machine can only compute functions that
>>>> include the description of the machine as its last input?
>>>>
>>>> Sound pretty weak to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>> to it and can be ignored. When it is ignored an Olcott
>>> machine <is> a Turing machine.
>>
>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored,
>> and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>
> The Turing Machine Description input to the master UTM is encoded to
> look at its own machine description or not.

But if we just run the machine described by the description, there is no
"Master UTM" to stop us.

What stops you from just manually putting SOME description there? How
can the machine know if it is right?

>
>>
>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider
>> (and few real problems would) then the requirement will include for
>> ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>
>
> We can arbitrary always construe it as a mapping from its input
> including its own machine description to its return value
> even in the cases where it ignores its own machine description.

And thus, to be a valid decider, that algorithm must generate the same
value for EVERY description (since the mapping isn't a function of the
description), so if the "pathological" input breaks ANY of the
descriptions, it has broken the whole machine.

You seem to fail at the use of qualifiers in logic.

>
>> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
>> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>>
>> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Especially recently your reviews have been very helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like ChatGPT debugged my words so that they were
>>>>> 100% clear you are doing this same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> we need to qualify ALL results demonstrated that need to be able
>>>>>> to prove that the input declaired and the actual inputs used match.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 3/6/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2024 11:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work
>>>>>> right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on its
>>>>>> tape.
>>>>>
>>>>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
>>>>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>>>>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>>>>
>>>> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the
>>>> machine or not?
>>>>
>>>> What requires me to use the UTM?
>>>
>>> Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> What stops the standard Turing Environment from executing it?
>>
>> And why does it matter?
>
> I already answered this many times. It must be 100% perfectly impossible
> for a machine to not have access to its own machine description.

And what in the definition of what a Olcott-Machine makes it impossible
to just execute it.

>
> A Turing machine could cheat on this. A machine that cannot possibly run
> unless it is simulated by a specific UTM cannot possibly cheat.

And what stops the cheating?

You just don't understand the problem.

Note, you can't just "define" away the issue.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property
>>>>>> of Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as
>>>>>> Turing Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input.
>>>>>> (There can be no hidden inputs).
>>>>>
>>>>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>>>>> The input is not hidden.
>>>>
>>>> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated
>>>> that include a description of the decider?
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.
>>>
>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>> to it and can be ignored.
>>
>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored,
>> and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>
> The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
> There is no need for a separate flag.

Who said a FLAG?

You are just being stupid.

The problem is you don't understand Requirements or Theory, so I guess
Olcott-Machines will forever be ill-defined.

>
>>
>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider
>> (and few real problems would) then the requirement will include for
>> ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>
>
> The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
> Description (STMD) input and itself.

So, you are admitting you don't understand the problem>?

>
>> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
>> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>>
>
> The Linz Ĥ is a template of an infinite number of machines.
> I cannot afford to change the subject until Linz is proven wrong.

Nope.

Linz H^ is a SPECIFIC machine, built from a Template applied to a
SPECIFIC (but arbitrary) H.

Hard to prove something wrong that you don't understand.

>
>> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,
>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
>>>>> input on every tape.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, Olcott machine can only compute functions that
>>>> include the description of the machine as its last input?
>>>>
>>>> Sound pretty weak to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>> to it and can be ignored. When it is ignored an Olcott
>>> machine <is> a Turing machine.
>>
>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored,
>> and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>>
>
> The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
> There is no need for a separate flag.
>

Who said flag?

You are just being dumb.

You don't understand about requirements or theory.

You are just admitting that even your Olcott-Machine H just fails to be
a Halt Decider as there is at least one input that it gets wrong.

>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider
>> (and few real problems would) then the requirement will include for
>> ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>
>
> The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
> Description (STMD) input and itself.

You are just being dumb.

You don't understand about requirements or theory.

You are just admitting that even your Olcott-Machine H just fails to be
a Halt Decider as there is at least one input that it gets wrong.

>
>> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
>> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>>
>> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>>
>
> The Linz Ĥ is a template of an infinite number of machines.
> I cannot afford to change the subject until Linz is proven wrong.

Nope.

Linz H^ is a SPECIFIC machine, built from a Template applied to a
SPECIFIC (but arbitrary) H.

Hard to prove something wrong that you don't understand.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Especially recently your reviews have been very helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like ChatGPT debugged my words so that they were
>>>>> 100% clear you are doing this same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> we need to qualify ALL results demonstrated that need to be able
>>>>>> to prove that the input declaired and the actual inputs used match.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 3/6/2024 11:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/6/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/6/2024 11:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>>>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>>>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>>>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work
>>>>>>> right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on
>>>>>>> its tape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
>>>>>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>>>>>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the
>>>>> machine or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> What requires me to use the UTM?
>>>>
>>>> Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> What stops the standard Turing Environment from executing it?
>>>
>>> And why does it matter?
>>
>> I already answered this many times. It must be 100% perfectly
>> impossible for a machine to not have access to its own machine
>> description.
>
> And what in the definition of what a Olcott-Machine makes it impossible
> to just execute it.
>
>>
>> A Turing machine could cheat on this. A machine that cannot possibly
>> run unless it is simulated by a specific UTM cannot possibly cheat.
>
> And what stops the cheating?
>
> You just don't understand the problem.
>
> Note, you can't just "define" away the issue.

Olcott machines have a UTM and a Turing Machine Description (TMD).
When the UTM begins simulating the TMD it first appends the TMD
as the end of the tape that it allocated to the TMD.

They cannot directly execute a TM for the same reason
that you can't fly a boat.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property
>>>>>>> of Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as
>>>>>>> Turing Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided input.
>>>>>>> (There can be no hidden inputs).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>>>>>> The input is not hidden.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated
>>>>> that include a description of the decider?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.
>>>>
>>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>>> to it and can be ignored.
>>>
>>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored,
>>> and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>>
>> The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
>> There is no need for a separate flag.
>
> Who said a FLAG?
>
> You are just being stupid.
>
> The problem is you don't understand Requirements or Theory, so I guess
> Olcott-Machines will forever be ill-defined.

What do you believe is missing?

>>
>>>
>>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider
>>> (and few real problems would) then the requirement will include for
>>> ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>>
>>
>> The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
>> Description (STMD) input and itself.
>
> So, you are admitting you don't understand the problem>?
The mapping is from the input with its TMD concatenated to the output.

>>
>>> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
>>> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> The Linz Ĥ is a template of an infinite number of machines.
If a verified fact that you might not understand.

>> I cannot afford to change the subject until Linz is proven wrong.
>
> Nope.

I will not change the subject until Linz is refuted.

>
> Linz H^ is a SPECIFIC machine, built from a Template applied to a
> SPECIFIC (but arbitrary) H.
>
> Hard to prove something wrong that you don't understand.

You have only agree with the key elements.

>>
>>> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
>>>>>> input on every tape.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, Olcott machine can only compute functions that
>>>>> include the description of the machine as its last input?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sound pretty weak to me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>>> to it and can be ignored. When it is ignored an Olcott
>>>> machine <is> a Turing machine.
>>>
>>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored,
>>> and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>>>
>>
>> The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
>> There is no need for a separate flag.
>>
>
> Who said flag?
>
> You are just being dumb.
>
> You don't understand about requirements or theory.
>
> You are just admitting that even your Olcott-Machine H just fails to be
> a Halt Decider as there is at least one input that it gets wrong.
>
>>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider
>>> (and few real problems would) then the requirement will include for
>>> ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>>
>>
>> The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
>> Description (STMD) input and itself.
>
> You are just being dumb.
>
> You don't understand about requirements or theory.
The mapping is from the input with its TMD concatenated to the output.

Too much repetition I may start skimming your posts ignoring much of them.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/6/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2024 11:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2024 11:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>>>>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>>>>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>>>>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>>>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>>>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't work
>>>>>>>> right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right description on
>>>>>>>> its tape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the basis
>>>>>>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>>>>>>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the
>>>>>> machine or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What requires me to use the UTM?
>>>>>
>>>>> Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> What stops the standard Turing Environment from executing it?
>>>>
>>>> And why does it matter?
>>>
>>> I already answered this many times. It must be 100% perfectly
>>> impossible for a machine to not have access to its own machine
>>> description.
>>
>> And what in the definition of what a Olcott-Machine makes it
>> impossible to just execute it.
>>
>>>
>>> A Turing machine could cheat on this. A machine that cannot possibly
>>> run unless it is simulated by a specific UTM cannot possibly cheat.
>>
>> And what stops the cheating?
>>
>> You just don't understand the problem.
>>
>> Note, you can't just "define" away the issue.
>
> Olcott machines have a UTM and a Turing Machine Description (TMD).
> When the UTM begins simulating the TMD it first appends the TMD
> as the end of the tape that it allocated to the TMD.
>
> They cannot directly execute a TM for the same reason
> that you can't fly a boat.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful property
>>>>>>>> of Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines built as
>>>>>>>> Turing Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their provided
>>>>>>>> input. (There can be no hidden inputs).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>>>>>>> The input is not hidden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated
>>>>>> that include a description of the decider?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>>>> to it and can be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored,
>>>> and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>>>
>>> The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
>>> There is no need for a separate flag.
>>
>> Who said a FLAG?
>>
>> You are just being stupid.
>>
>> The problem is you don't understand Requirements or Theory, so I guess
>> Olcott-Machines will forever be ill-defined.
>
> What do you believe is missing?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider
>>>> (and few real problems would) then the requirement will include for
>>>> ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
>>> Description (STMD) input and itself.
>>
>> So, you are admitting you don't understand the problem>?
> The mapping is from the input with its TMD concatenated to the output.

Which includes information that a program trying to compute a mapping
that that doesn't include that information shoildn't have, and thus the
specification need to include that this information DOESN'T affect the
results.

A sample case is a Halt Decider, since the mapping doesn't depend on the
particualr decider that is trying to generate the mapping.

Thus, if your H actually DOES use that information, and it makes a
difference in the answer, it CAN'T be a correct Halt Decider.

in general:
IF M(x, 0) != M(x, 1) for some x, then it is impossible for
M(x, y) = F(x) for all X and Y.

in the particular case of a Halt Decider:

If H(<M>, d, a0) != H(<M>, d, a1) for some a0 != a1, then it is
impossible for the following to be true for all a's:

H(<M>, d, a) == True for all M(d) that Halt, and
False for all M(d) that don't halt

So, you are just admitting your olcott-machine decider that uses its
description can't be a Correct Halt Decider.

>
>>>
>>>> Note that means if a given H^ breaks only one description of the
>>>> decider, that is enough to make the decider incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Linz Ĥ is a template of an infinite number of machines.
> If a verified fact that you might not understand.

So, you just continue to LIE, maybe out of utter stupidity, but you are
just LYING.

>
>>> I cannot afford to change the subject until Linz is proven wrong.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> I will not change the subject until Linz is refuted.

So, you better start obeying the condtions of Linz and not just lying
about it.

>
>>
>> Linz H^ is a SPECIFIC machine, built from a Template applied to a
>> SPECIFIC (but arbitrary) H.
>>
>> Hard to prove something wrong that you don't understand.
>
> You have only agree with the key elements.

Then you agree that you haven't actually proved anything!

>
>>>
>>>> It is a FOR ALL, not a FOR ANY to satisfy the requirement.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since Olcott-Machines do not have this property,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Olcott machines <are> Turing Machines with an extra
>>>>>>> input on every tape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, Olcott machine can only compute functions that
>>>>>> include the description of the machine as its last input?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sound pretty weak to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>>>> to it and can be ignored. When it is ignored an Olcott
>>>>> machine <is> a Turing machine.
>>>>
>>>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored,
>>>> and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
>>> There is no need for a separate flag.
>>>
>>
>> Who said flag?
>>
>> You are just being dumb.
>>
>> You don't understand about requirements or theory.
>>
>> You are just admitting that even your Olcott-Machine H just fails to
>> be a Halt Decider as there is at least one input that it gets wrong.
>>
>>>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider
>>>> (and few real problems would) then the requirement will include for
>>>> ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
>>> Description (STMD) input and itself.
>>
>> You are just being dumb.
>>
>> You don't understand about requirements or theory.
> The mapping is from the input with its TMD concatenated to the output.
>
> Too much repetition I may start skimming your posts ignoring much of them.
>

On 3/7/2024 12:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/6/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/6/2024 11:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2024 11:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>>>>>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>>>>>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>>>>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>>>>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't
>>>>>>>>> work right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right
>>>>>>>>> description on its tape.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the
>>>>>>>> basis
>>>>>>>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>>>>>>>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the
>>>>>>> machine or not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What requires me to use the UTM?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> What stops the standard Turing Environment from executing it?
>>>>>
>>>>> And why does it matter?
>>>>
>>>> I already answered this many times. It must be 100% perfectly
>>>> impossible for a machine to not have access to its own machine
>>>> description.
>>>
>>> And what in the definition of what a Olcott-Machine makes it
>>> impossible to just execute it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A Turing machine could cheat on this. A machine that cannot possibly
>>>> run unless it is simulated by a specific UTM cannot possibly cheat.
>>>
>>> And what stops the cheating?
>>>
>>> You just don't understand the problem.
>>>
>>> Note, you can't just "define" away the issue.
>>
>> Olcott machines have a UTM and a Turing Machine Description (TMD).
>> When the UTM begins simulating the TMD it first appends the TMD
>> as the end of the tape that it allocated to the TMD.
>>
>> They cannot directly execute a TM for the same reason
>> that you can't fly a boat.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful
>>>>>>>>> property of Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines
>>>>>>>>> built as Turing Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their
>>>>>>>>> provided input. (There can be no hidden inputs).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>>>>>>>> The input is not hidden.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated
>>>>>>> that include a description of the decider?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>>>>> to it and can be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be ignored,
>>>>> and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
>>>> There is no need for a separate flag.
>>>
>>> Who said a FLAG?
>>>
>>> You are just being stupid.
>>>
>>> The problem is you don't understand Requirements or Theory, so I
>>> guess Olcott-Machines will forever be ill-defined.
>>
>> What do you believe is missing?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the decider
>>>>> (and few real problems would) then the requirement will include for
>>>>> ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
>>>> Description (STMD) input and itself.
>>>
>>> So, you are admitting you don't understand the problem>?
>> The mapping is from the input with its TMD concatenated to the output.
>
> Which includes information that a program trying to compute a mapping
> that that doesn't include that information shoildn't have, and thus the
> specification need to include that this information DOESN'T affect the
> results.
>
> A sample case is a Halt Decider, since the mapping doesn't depend on the
> particualr decider that is trying to generate the mapping.
>
> Thus, if your H actually DOES use that information, and it makes a
> difference in the answer, it CAN'T be a correct Halt Decider.

H(D,D) Sees that DD is calling H(D,D) itself at machine address 00001522
H1(D,D) Sees that DD is NOT calling H1(D,D) at machine address 00001422
*That is the reason for the different return values*

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2024-03-07 02:46:48 +0000, olcott said:

> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.

Is the description of the description any different from the
description itself?

> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>
> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.

--
Mikko

On 7/03/24 03:46, olcott wrote:
> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>
> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>
> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>

An Olcott machine can still be embedded by modifying it so that it
includes a description of the original complete machine, and whenever
the original would access its own description, the embedded copy
accesses the included description of the original complete machine.

On 3/7/2024 9:47 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 7/03/24 03:46, olcott wrote:
>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>
>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>
>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>
>
> An Olcott machine can still be embedded by modifying it so that it
> includes a description of the original complete machine, and whenever
> the original would access its own description, the embedded copy
> accesses the included description of the original complete machine.

I have refuted the Linz proof going into other
permutations of this provides zero evidence that
I have not correctly refuted the Linz proof.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/6/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2024 12:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2024 11:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2024 11:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/6/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>>>>>>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>>>>>>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>>>>>>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>>>>>>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, a Machine that embeds another machine inside it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> work right as that sub-machine doesn't get the right
>>>>>>>>>> description on its tape.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No an Olcott machine would immediately reject its input on the
>>>>>>>>> basis
>>>>>>>>> that it immediately determines that simulating this input would be
>>>>>>>>> simulating a copy of itself with a copy of its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, do you need your olcott-utm to add the description of the
>>>>>>>> machine or not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What requires me to use the UTM?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Within the Olcott model of computation only UTM's are available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What stops the standard Turing Environment from executing it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why does it matter?
>>>>>
>>>>> I already answered this many times. It must be 100% perfectly
>>>>> impossible for a machine to not have access to its own machine
>>>>> description.
>>>>
>>>> And what in the definition of what a Olcott-Machine makes it
>>>> impossible to just execute it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A Turing machine could cheat on this. A machine that cannot
>>>>> possibly run unless it is simulated by a specific UTM cannot
>>>>> possibly cheat.
>>>>
>>>> And what stops the cheating?
>>>>
>>>> You just don't understand the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Note, you can't just "define" away the issue.
>>>
>>> Olcott machines have a UTM and a Turing Machine Description (TMD).
>>> When the UTM begins simulating the TMD it first appends the TMD
>>> as the end of the tape that it allocated to the TMD.
>>>
>>> They cannot directly execute a TM for the same reason
>>> that you can't fly a boat.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One thing this means is that you have lots the powerful
>>>>>>>>>> property of Turing Machines that all Machines and SubMachines
>>>>>>>>>> built as Turing Machines are ALWAYS a Computation of their
>>>>>>>>>> provided input. (There can be no hidden inputs).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *You have to pay attention to ALL the words that I say*
>>>>>>>>> The input is not hidden.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, I can only perform computation whose map is being computated
>>>>>>>> that include a description of the decider?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like a pretty weak computation structure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A machine's own machine description is always available
>>>>>>> to it and can be ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since it is there, the theory can't just assume it will be
>>>>>> ignored, and thus the specification must indicate that it WILL be
>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> The simulated Turing Machine description either ignores it or not.
>>>>> There is no need for a separate flag.
>>>>
>>>> Who said a FLAG?
>>>>
>>>> You are just being stupid.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is you don't understand Requirements or Theory, so I
>>>> guess Olcott-Machines will forever be ill-defined.
>>>
>>> What do you believe is missing?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if the mapping doesn't depend on the description of the
>>>>>> decider (and few real problems would) then the requirement will
>>>>>> include for ALL possible descriptions being given to the decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The mapping is at most the input to the simulated Turing Machine
>>>>> Description (STMD) input and itself.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are admitting you don't understand the problem>?
>>> The mapping is from the input with its TMD concatenated to the output.
>>
>> Which includes information that a program trying to compute a mapping
>> that that doesn't include that information shoildn't have, and thus
>> the specification need to include that this information DOESN'T affect
>> the results.
>>
>> A sample case is a Halt Decider, since the mapping doesn't depend on
>> the particualr decider that is trying to generate the mapping.
>>
>> Thus, if your H actually DOES use that information, and it makes a
>> difference in the answer, it CAN'T be a correct Halt Decider.
>
> H(D,D) Sees that DD is calling H(D,D) itself at machine address 00001522
> H1(D,D) Sees that DD is NOT calling H1(D,D) at machine address 00001422
> *That is the reason for the different return values*
>

And thus H and H1 are shown to NOT be the same computation of just the
description of the Compuation, and thus you "proof" is just a LIE.

Yes, it is well know that OTHER deciders can answer about the input
given to H (which is why the question is valid), but each of them have a
different input, that they will fail on.

The fact you keep bringing this up just shows that you have a fundmental
error in your logic and knowledge, and the fact that you refuse to learn
ust makes you are ignorant pathological liar.

On 3/7/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2024 9:47 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 7/03/24 03:46, olcott wrote:
>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>
>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>
>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>
>>
>> An Olcott machine can still be embedded by modifying it so that it
>> includes a description of the original complete machine, and whenever
>> the original would access its own description, the embedded copy
>> accesses the included description of the original complete machine.
>
> I have refuted the Linz proof going into other
> permutations of this provides zero evidence that
> I have not correctly refuted the Linz proof.
>

Nope, that is just a LIE.

You may have CLAIMED to make such a proof, but it was blown apart
showing the errors in it.

You are just so ignorant of what you are talking about, you just don't
understand when people refute your logic.

And, you have admittted that all of your arguments are just lies, as
your logic is based on working in a totally different system with
different rules (that you can' fully explain) but that you fallicaiously
claim applies to the real system even though it can't.

You are just proving you are s stupid ignorant pathologically lying idiot.

On 7/03/24 18:35, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2024 9:47 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 7/03/24 03:46, olcott wrote:
>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>
>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>
>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>
>>
>> An Olcott machine can still be embedded by modifying it so that it
>> includes a description of the original complete machine, and whenever
>> the original would access its own description, the embedded copy
>> accesses the included description of the original complete machine.
>
> I have refuted the Linz proof going into other
> permutations of this provides zero evidence that
> I have not correctly refuted the Linz proof.
>

The Linz proof is about Turing machines. Trying to pretend it's supposed
to be about other types of machines is dishonest lying.

On 3/7/2024 7:38 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 7/03/24 18:35, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/7/2024 9:47 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 7/03/24 03:46, olcott wrote:
>>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>>
>>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>>
>>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>>
>>>
>>> An Olcott machine can still be embedded by modifying it so that it
>>> includes a description of the original complete machine, and whenever
>>> the original would access its own description, the embedded copy
>>> accesses the included description of the original complete machine.
>>
>> I have refuted the Linz proof going into other
>> permutations of this provides zero evidence that
>> I have not correctly refuted the Linz proof.
>>
>
> The Linz proof is about Turing machines. Trying to pretend it's supposed
> to be about other types of machines is dishonest lying.

I am working on the computability of the halting problem
(the exact same TMD / input pairs) by a slightly augmented
notion of Turing machines as elaborated below:

Olcott machines are entirely comprised of a UTM + TMD and one
extra step that any UTM could perform, append the TMD to the end
of its own tape.

Olcott machines that ignore this extra input compute the exact
same set of functions that Turing machines compute.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer