Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 11:05:53 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v5of91$3r6an$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me> <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me> <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me> <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me> <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me> <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me> <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me> <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v5el8c$24l4$4@news.muc.de> <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me> <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me> <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org> <v5fuf7$1up2o$1@dont-email.me> <v5gk7m$22b20$1@dont-email.me> <v5h3aj$24jbd$5@dont-email.me> <v5j4p0$2ksq3$1@dont-email.me> <v5jrrq$2o58l$4@dont-email.me> <v5k0ru$2q29e$1@dont-email.me> <v5k5ko$2qsdr$1@dont-email.me> <v5k79o$19nfi$1@i2pn2.org> <v5k824$2qsdr$6@dont-email.me> <v5lvhu$39e8b$1@dont-email.me> <v5mkdb$3cibm$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 10:05:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ef6da5e05d63bfb2c13ebab8d1b7b889";
	logging-data="4036951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Z/ZPMP2PQ1R8gsZDusjhN"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nZ4ruHf6FNkAWOU8n0VvThOSevg=
Bytes: 5001

On 2024-06-28 15:21:15 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/28/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-27 17:38:12 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 6/27/2024 12:25 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:56:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> No. The input is merely a variable in the question. The question is
>>>> implicit.
>>>> 
>>> Not at all. That is flat out incorrect.
>> 
>> You are wrong. The input is the variable in the question. The question
>> is not a part of the input.
> 
> The input is the machine address of the finite string
> of x86 machine code.

Not just the address. The input include everyting the pregram reads,
in particular the finite string the input points to. But the current
point is that there is no question there and not place to where a
question could be put.

>>> The input is a specific finite string of bytes that
>>> has the semantics of the x86 programming language.
>> 
>> For a decider that is made for that sort of input. But there cannot be
>> any question in that input.

> The question is:
> Does this finite string of machine code specify behavior
> that terminates normally?

That is the question the program is expected to answer but the program
cannot be asked that question, or any other.

>>>>> None-the-less no-one here understands that every halt decider is only
>>>>> required to report on the behavior that its actual input actually maps
>>>>> to.
>>> 
>>>> That is a tautology: „It must simulate that way that it can.”
>>>> But it is not free to make something up and claim itself infallible
>>>> 
>>> DDD correctly simulated by H0 cannot possible halt.
>>> The same thing goes for the conventional halting problem input.
>>> 
>>>>> Instead everyone here expects that the halt decider must map to the
>>>>> English description of what the authors of textbooks expect it to map
>>>>> to.
>>> 
>>>> That is the definition of a halt decider. If it does not fit that
>>>> definition, it is not one.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> We could "define" a zipangnitfark as a square circle
>>> that has a radius of a zebra with each equally
>>> length side having the length of a misconception.
>>> 
>>> Some definitions ARE incorrect.
>> 
>> That definition is not incorrect.
> 
> It has type mismatch errors making it incorrect.

The type mismatch error might make all use of the definition incorrect
but not the definition itself.

> If I ask you how many kilos do your misconceptions
> weigh you cannot provide a correct answer because
> of the type mismatch error in the question.

I can provide an answer that I consder correct.

> Incoherent definitions are incorrect definitions.

They are not incorrect but probably useless for their purpose.

> When I define Snitfinbangflizzledroop as the square-root
> of misconceptions about the US constitution my definition
> is incorrect because there is no mapping from the input
> of misconceptions about the US constitution to any square-root
> value.

That does not make the definition incorrect. You just can't apply
that definition if you don't know the mapping.

-- 
Mikko