Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:53:40 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org> <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org> <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org> <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org> <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 04:53:41 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c97dfd2b0fa781dfb9291aeaceb4463"; logging-data="3838373"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kpZB9cE8rw5/TwN8GL1E0" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:g8WAaQYtyd5jnQNdCPMjYWE937A= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4906 On 8/7/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/7/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/7/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/7/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/7/2024 1:02 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:54:41 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 8/7/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>>> I know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not >>>>>>> mean >>>>>>> what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that "DDD >>>>>>> emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it does >>>>>>> not. >>>>>>> DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>> In other words when DDD is defined to have a pathological >>>>>> relationship >>>>>> to HHH we can just close our eyes and ignore it and pretend that it >>>>>> doesn't exist? >>>>> It doesn't change anything about DDD. HHH was supposed to decide >>>>> anything >>>>> and can't fulfill that promise. That doesn't mean that DDD is somehow >>>>> faulty, it's just a counterexample. >>>>> >>>> >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>    return; >>>> } >>>> >>>> *HHH is required to report on the behavior of DDD* >>>> Anyone that does not understand that HHH meets this criteria >>>> has insufficient understanding. >>> >>> But it doesn't, as a correct simulation of a DDD that calls an HHH >>> that returns will stop running, >> >> I really think that you must be a liar here because >> you have known this for years: >> >> On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>  > ...In some formulations, there are specific states >>  >    defined as "halting states" and the machine only >>  >    halts if either the start state is a halt state... >> >>  > ...these and many other definitions all have >>  >    equivalent computing prowess... >> >> Anyone that knows C knows that DDD correctly simulated >> by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return" {halt state}. >> > > But the problem is that you HHH ODESN'T correctly emulate the DDD it is > given, because it aborts its emulation. > Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly. In none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach its "return" instruction halt state. *There are no double-talk weasel words around this* *There are no double-talk weasel words around this* *There are no double-talk weasel words around this* Everyone can tell that Richard is trying to get way with disagreeing with a tautology. The strawman deception won't work any more Richard! When you switch from DDD correctly simulated by HHH everyone can tell. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer