Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:25:13 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:25:13 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1367538"; 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: 4409 Lines: 57 Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:56:56 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/27/2024 10:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-27 14:10:02 +0000, olcott said: >>> On 6/27/2024 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-26 12:58:59 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> On 6/26/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-26 02:29:59 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> If this was true then everyone here would already know that H(P,P) >>>>> is not even being asked about the behavior of the directly executed >>>>> P(P). >>>> >>>> Everyone knwos that H(P,P) is not asked anything. >>>> >>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a >>> decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as a >>> yes–no question of the input values. >> >> That's right. But that question cannot be presented to the decider. >> Only the input values can. >> > In other words you are saying that Turing machines do not typically > understand English. No. The input is merely a variable in the question. The question is implicit. > 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 > 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. > *DDD simulated by H0 DOES NOT HALT* *incorrectly Yes, it does not halt. That is a wrong simulation, as DDD does halt. > Everyone here stupidly ignores that the pathological relationship that > DDD calls H0(DDD) changes the behavior of DDD. A simulator can’t change the behaviour of its input, it is bound by it.