Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.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 23:41:11 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 77 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 06:41:11 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c97dfd2b0fa781dfb9291aeaceb4463"; logging-data="3904192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XPxqGTa/QeyyI0OqpNkSS" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZtuzgErWQOxgxLZZ3aRLegl464k= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4857 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 only errors are yours each error was pointed out separately in the Preceding posts. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer