Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:02:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kou4$3b2ta$1@dont-email.me>
	<v8lcir$3f6vr$4@dont-email.me> <v8ldcs$3fcgg$2@dont-email.me>
	<v8lem0$3ftpo$2@dont-email.me>
	<735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org>
	<v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
	<5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
	<v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
	<cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
	<v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
	<v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
	<950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
	<v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
	<4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<v8v7p3$29r2r$1@dont-email.me> <v8vub1$32fso$14@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:02:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1792180"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3200
Lines: 35

Am Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:54:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/7/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said:

>> I know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not mean
>> what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that "DDD
>> emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it does not.
>> DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not.
>> 
> In other words when DDD is defined to have a pathological relationship
> to HHH we can just close our eyes and ignore it and pretend that it
> doesn't exist?
It doesn't change anything about DDD. HHH was supposed to decide anything
and can't fulfill that promise. That doesn't mean that DDD is somehow
faulty, it's just a counterexample.

> DDD does specify non-halting behavior to HHH and HHH must report on this
> non-halting behavior that DDD specifies.
DDD halts.

> No halt decider is ever allowed to report on the behavior of any
> computation that itself is contained within unless this is the same
> behavior that its finite string input specifies.
Aha! The "unless" is new (you could've marked it.

> It seems that no one here has that degree of expertise. That they know
> that they don't understand these things and still say that I am wrong is
> dishonest.
Crackpots are usually too incompetent to recognise their own incompetence.

Regarding the title: the actual behaviour of the description of a machine
is, well, the behaviour of that machine.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.