Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 11:09:06 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <1009g71$9c9a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvp1fm$3r5li$4@dont-email.me> <b049926b61baa5d69d11655a8af06e537b7acd71.camel@gmail.com> <vvqga9$gldn$3@dont-email.me> <41e08841caf0d628beb5105bc78531a412eea440.camel@gmail.com> <vvql3p$gldn$15@dont-email.me> <cb999b6746607a1445c196e485a2c1124eaee8b5.camel@gmail.com> <vvqnev$i5d0$3@dont-email.me> <07c4f2302645a7e58957b5e5bffed80397a6ddae.camel@gmail.com> <vvr0ot$k9nu$1@dont-email.me> <04bd32e2a5572305de0376f9569172932ffb252f.camel@gmail.com> <vvr2ov$khl4$2@dont-email.me> <72f8c8295d3a0ff265a67b0de838516ade16c6d5.camel@gmail.com> <vvr6lj$lieg$1@dont-email.me> <8667c45172be6519444525c30d280cde06d77e2b.camel@gmail.com> <vvr8dj$lu2b$1@dont-email.me> <7281f97665272ea0eb85e56940648f6c807b0b8e.camel@gmail.com> <vvralq$me5h$1@dont-email.me> <f5a9ca0c0edaeb582b14c3babee27e25d41fc953.camel@gmail.com> <vvrgmf$n9a9$4@dont-email.me> <15a2c03c9dd9005ee5dc80c5284bff16d167c6ab@i2pn2.org> <1007mre$3qb7l$21@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 10:09:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fcd41d732342ae1947432b72f3cb11ce";
	logging-data="307498"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193U/IcZFYKfetIi7pSMK6O"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eC9ZSgURZbDQieqFjmPKz68YrZQ=
Bytes: 2656

On 2025-05-16 15:50:06 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/16/2025 10:38 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 11 May 2025 19:51:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 
>>> If on a real system an input tried to fool the denial-of-service-attack
>>> detector IT WOULD FAIL.
>>> Prior to my work a denial-of-service-attack detector WOULD FAIL. It
>>> would not know to reject DDD.
>> No, the goal is not to make HHH run forever. It would not fail at
>> terminating contrary to HHH's result.
> 
> The goal of the counter-example input to the HP
> proofs has always been to make halting undecidable
> on this input. A simulating termination analyzer
> fixes that.

No, the "goal" is to make one Turing machine to fail on that input.
That another Truing machine can determine whether it halts does not
matter.

-- 
Mikko