Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes 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: References: 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