Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
 ---Boilerplate Reply
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:31:45 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5f9fh$134dk$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v50o2t$2fh98$2@dont-email.me>
	<v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me> <v53b0s$324b4$1@dont-email.me>
	<v53tjm$35vak$1@dont-email.me> <v5415i$lkkc$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v543k2$376u3$1@dont-email.me> <v5460r$lkkc$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v54br6$38n2k$2@dont-email.me> <v54c3r$lkkc$5@i2pn2.org>
	<v54crs$38n2k$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:31:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1151412"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3164
Lines: 41

Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:22:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/21/2024 12:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 9:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 3:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2024 om 02:00 schreef olcott:

>>>>>>>>>> If the simulation of a program with a loop of 5 iterations is
>>>>>>>>>> aborted after 3 iterations, all instructions are correctly
>>>>>>>>>> simulated. Nevertheless, it is an incorrect simulation, because
>>>>>>>>>> it should simulate up to the final state of the program.

>>>> First, NO ONE has said that *H* (or what every you are calling your
>>>> decider today) can correct simulate the input to a final state.

> When there is no mapping from the finite string x86 machine language
> input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D) then H(D,D) IS NOT being asked
> about the behavior of D(D).
It means that H can't do the mapping, i.e. it is not simulating correctly.
It does a different map that doesn't fit its specification.

> Not even being asked about the behavior of D(D) is not the same
> situation as:
> the logical impossibility of specifying a halt decider H that correctly
> reports the halt status of input D that is defined to do the opposite of
> whatever value that H reports.
> Of course this is impossible.
Thank you. So what are we arguing about?

>> Nothing says that the decider has to actually be ABLE to answer the
>> question, only that the answer exists. Uncomputable problems just can't
>> be solved with a computation.
QFT

-- 
Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik 
sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim