Path: ...!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: Correcting the definition of the halting problem --- Computable
 functions
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 21:36:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1b2fd76870b5b5214122edc536a1dc3f5316de3f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vr9jpt$gave$2@dont-email.me>
 <vr9lj6$j0f0$2@dont-email.me> <vr9qu8$m4cu$2@dont-email.me>
 <vr9ttl$q57o$1@dont-email.me> <vr9u5m$q57o$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrbckn$23f4t$1@dont-email.me> <vrbtiq$2j07c$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrc3ud$2p461$1@dont-email.me> <vrc4nu$2m36k$5@dont-email.me>
 <vrkc2m$24ft6$1@dont-email.me> <vrkdij$25f9f$3@dont-email.me>
 <vrlt36$3haib$1@dont-email.me> <vrn237$im1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrn67b$md49$1@dont-email.me>
 <cb974817db8e02049daa5604d725300154e33ad1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrps14$35a4m$2@dont-email.me>
 <eab11e8806c669d296bff986870bdc6abdbb2fef@i2pn2.org>
 <vrqicu$3s258$1@dont-email.me>
 <30c2beae6c191f2502e93972a69c85ff227bfd03@i2pn2.org>
 <vrrs79$11a56$7@dont-email.me> <vrrsta$tdm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrs264$1a43i$1@dont-email.me> <vrs54q$1d1o2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrse90$1jr8u$1@dont-email.me> <vrsk13$1q39o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrsn62$1rblu$2@dont-email.me>
 <a022b87645dc31ff9c810dd3d8d76675b811885e@i2pn2.org>
 <vrua1l$38ob9$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:42:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1768182"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vrua1l$38ob9$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4952
Lines: 61

On 3/25/25 9:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/25/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 24 Mar 2025 17:43:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/24/2025 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-24 14:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/24/2025 12:35 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 10:14 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/25 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is impossible for HHH compute the function from the direct
>>>>>>>>>>> execution of DDD because DDD is not the finite string input
>>>>>>>>>>> basis from which all computations must begin.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>>>>>> WHy isn't DDD made into the correct finite string?i
>>>>>>>>> DDD is a semantically and syntactically correct finite stirng of
>>>>>>>>> the x86 machine language.
>>>>>>>> Which includes the machine code of DDD, the machine code of HHH,
>>>>>>>> and the machine code of everything it calls down to the OS level.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That seems to be your own fault.
>>>>>>>>>> The problem has always been that you want to use the wrong string
>>>>>>>>>> for DDD by excluding the code for HHH from it.
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH directly causes recursive emulation because it
>>>>>>>>> calls HHH(DDD) to emulate itself again. HHH complies until HHH
>>>>>>>>> determines that this cycle cannot possibly reach the final halt
>>>>>>>>> state of DDD.
>>>>>>>> Which is another way of saying that HHH can't determine that DDD
>>>>>>>> halts when executed directly.
>>>>>>> given an input of the function domain it can return the
>>>>>>> corresponding output.
>>>>>>> Computable functions are only allowed to compute the mapping from
>>>>>>> their input finite strings to an output.
>>>>>> The HHH you implemented is computing *a* computable function, but
>>>>>> it's not computing the halting function:
>>>>> The whole point of this post is to prove that no Turing machine ever
>>>>> reports on the behavior of the direct execution of another Turing
>>>>> machine.
>> UTMs do.
>>
> 
> They never do, they only report on the behavior that
> their input finite string specifies. When their input
> finite string defines a pathological relationship
> with its simulator then the specified behavior can
> differ from the behavior of the direct execution.
> 
> Everyone here has been happily denying this verified
> fact disagreeing with the behavior that the semantics
> of the x86 language species. That is like disagreeing
> with arithmetic just to make sure to be disagreeable.
> 

Nope, YOU have been denying the basic facts of the theory of computing 
since you just don't know what you are talking about, and have made up 
all your definitions.

Thus, anything you say about that theory, should be looked on as almost 
certainly a FRAUD based on LIES of wrong definitions.