Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:56:31 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@i2pn2.org> <211f9a2a284cb2deaa666f424c1ef826fe855e80@i2pn2.org> <3f250e699762cfe6fccc844f10eb04f32d470b6a@i2pn2.org> <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org> <448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:56:32 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="573eb7050e522f67e4fe879678fe5346"; logging-data="3445926"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+cwvZtlvK1se+fp1Dqn138" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:S+PwfpeeDDiVWRyrIiB8jg1aCWY= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250328-4, 3/28/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 4875 On 3/27/2025 5:01 PM, joes wrote: > Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:50:12 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott: >>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final staste even if >>>>> an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do that, >>>>> it isn't showing non-halting. >>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state in an >>>> unbounded number of steps. >>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 reaches its final state in a finite number of >>>> steps. >>> It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator reports that it >>> is unable to reach the end of the simulation of a program that halts in >>> direct execution. >> That IS NOT what HHH is reporting. > That is exactly what it does, and you have said so before(tm). > You are saying that HHH is reporting that HHH is screwing up THAT IS FALSE. HHH IS REPORTING THAT DDD IS SCREWING UP. >> HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot >> possibly reach its own final halt state. > DDD doesn't *do* anything, it is being simulated. HHH can't reach > DDD's existing halt state. > DDD specifies a recursive emulation relationship with HHH >>> It is interesting to know: >>> 'Is there an algorithm that can determine for all possible inputs >>> whether the input specifies a program that [...] >>> halts when directly executed?' >>> This question seems undecidable for Olcott. >> It is the halts while directly executed that is impossible for all >> inputs. No TM can ever report on the behavior of the direct execution of >> any other TM. > The direct execution of a TM is obviously computable from its description. > >> A TM can only report on the behavior that the machine code of another TM >> specifies. When it specifies a pathological relationship then the >> behavior caused by the pathological relationship MUST BE REPORTED. > No, the machine code doesn't "specify a pathological relationship", that > is purely a feature of trying to simulate it with the included simulator. > The classic HP counter-example input HAS ALWAYS SPECIFIED A PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP TO ITS DECIDER. The question has always been what Boolean value can H correctly return when D is able to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns? When we prove that it is impossible for D to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns the original question becomes moot. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer