Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:22:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0dd640285a29f2ccc040a5a91c13738762ea4588@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs2u3v$3mcjm$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs434l$mmcb$3@dont-email.me> <vs45a3$resr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4ne1$1c1ja$1@dont-email.me> <vs4ovc$1e09p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4pg8$1c1ja$6@dont-email.me> <vs4pi9$1e09p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs4qpp$1c1ja$7@dont-email.me> <vs4r2u$1e09p$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs4snt$1c1ja$9@dont-email.me> <vs4srl$1e09p$4@dont-email.me>
 <vs4tj3$1c1ja$11@dont-email.me> <vs4tot$1e09p$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs50dt$1c1ja$13@dont-email.me> <vs51po$1e09p$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs6nv4$39556$1@dont-email.me> <vs6or0$2p360$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6rnk$39556$7@dont-email.me> <vs6sjv$2p360$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs6t79$39556$13@dont-email.me>
 <45b3405a167984b8649777fdc0804b124b21e19b@i2pn2.org>
 <vs9dcd$1v2n9$1@dont-email.me> <vs9em1$20g2j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9ft6$1v2n9$4@dont-email.me> <vs9g1l$20g2j$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9h4u$23cav$1@dont-email.me> <vs9hfq$20g2j$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs9in5$23cav$3@dont-email.me> <vs9k5l$26cg5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9p7n$27rl4$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:31:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2313829"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vs9p7n$27rl4$8@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6064
Lines: 110

On 3/29/25 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 3:11 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/29/2025 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2025 2:25 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 1:37 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 4:31 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:27:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 1:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:33 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good, because that's all that's required for a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are sometimes when the behavior of TM Description D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by UTM1 does not match the behavior 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by UTM2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because to satisfy the requirements, the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the described machine when executed directly must be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I HAVE PROVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS WRONG NITWIT.
>>>>>>>>>> According to what? WE require it. YOU are answering a 
>>>>>>>>>> different question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Category error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when executed directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is 100% impossible for any TM to take another executing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM as its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>> Quit that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it can take a complete description of a TM that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is not always a perfect proxy for the behavior of the direct 
>>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>>> of the underlying machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Uh yes it is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That my proof that I am correct
>>>>>>>>> is over your head is less than
>>>>>>>>> no rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that such TM description can be given to a UTM which 
>>>>>>>> will exactly replicate the behavior of the described TM when 
>>>>>>>> executed directly proves otherwise is apparently over your head.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One cannot correctly ignore the effect that a specified
>>>>>>> pathological relationship has between its simulator
>>>>>>> and its input on the behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All it means is that HHH does not correctly map DDD to 1 as per 
>>>>>> the requirements:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
>>>>> In the same way that sum(2,3) cannot be mapped to 7.
>>>>
>>>> It can, it just wouldn't meet the requirements of the mathematical 
>>>> "sum" function.
>>>>
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Likewise if HHH reported on the behavior of the
>>> directly executed DD 
>>
>> It would be behaving as required:
>>
> 
> Requiring a halt decider to not be able to return
> is an incorrect requirement. It is required to outsmart
> such attempts.
> 

Only if it is able to do so correctly.

There is no requirement that a correct Halt Decider must exist.

That seems to be one of your fundamental problems, you don't understand 
that some natural problems can not be solved, because the problem space 
grows faster than the solution space.