Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:25:18 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:25:18 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7b5d45ea651ac5e859b2687eb76fd47"; logging-data="3455243"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jq6pxntyFEbEtmf1wzXqa" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:zYdm/fGPDOAV+ZldThdTgPc3/Gk= Bytes: 5294 On 2024-06-27 17:38:12 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/27/2024 12:25 PM, joes wrote: >> 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. >> > Not at all. That is flat out incorrect. You are wrong. The input is the variable in the question. The question is not a part of the input. > The input is a specific finite string of bytes that > has the semantics of the x86 programming language. For a decider that is made for that sort of input. But there cannot be any question in that input. >>> 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 >> > DDD correctly simulated by H0 cannot possible halt. > The same thing goes for the conventional halting problem input. > >>> 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. >> > > We could "define" a zipangnitfark as a square circle > that has a radius of a zebra with each equally > length side having the length of a misconception. > > Some definitions ARE incorrect. That definition is not incorrect. It may be unsuitable for your purposes but that does not make it incorrect. All parts of a good definition are there: the term for the concept, the superconcept, and the differentiating feature. Definitions like this would be a great improvement to your writings. -- Mikko