Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ben Bacarisse Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 23:42:15 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 14 Message-ID: <87frrmczso.fsf@bsb.me.uk> References: <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org> <-Vednah5VvbtwTD7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 00:42:15 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="415cf28f74f23eafe97e7e4af33ac9bc"; logging-data="3193261"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188Ru6umrLNSe5es7aVU33khMddjw/nX5U=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MiwWHWa+yqpfWiPUF4i3hO/87LQ= sha1:2FdDoHlS5mJBvUYSUu4Hoz/TIFM= X-BSB-Auth: 1.6433f7f60e19983cf190.20240802234215BST.87frrmczso.fsf@bsb.me.uk Bytes: 2329 Mike Terry writes: > Of course these traces don't support PO's overall case he is claiming, > because the (various) logs show that DDD halts, and that HHH(DDD) reports > DDD as non-halting, exactly as Linz/Sipser argue. Er, that's about it! PO certainly used to claim that false (non-halting) is the correct result "even though DDD halts" (I've edited the quote to reflect a name change). Unless he's changed this position, the traces do support his claim that what everyone else calls the wrong answer is actually the right one. -- Ben.