Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Correcting the definition of the halting problem --- Computable
 functions ---HHH(DD)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 21:24:00 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <25342b7301d0b1247bf817386008a0d05e584486@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vrrsta$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> <vrsnhu$1q39o$2@dont-email.me>
	<vrsodl$1rblu$3@dont-email.me> <vrsogj$1q39o$3@dont-email.me>
	<vrsqlq$1rblu$4@dont-email.me> <vrsrmr$1q39o$4@dont-email.me>
	<vrt14i$264jb$1@dont-email.me> <vrt1tu$257a2$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrt357$264jb$2@dont-email.me> <vrt6va$22073$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrt7u2$2au0q$1@dont-email.me> <vrufj5$3hle3$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrug1b$3gia2$5@dont-email.me> <vrugj2$3hle3$3@dont-email.me>
	<vruh6d$3j3me$2@dont-email.me> <vruhf1$3hle3$4@dont-email.me>
	<vrumaj$3n7k6$1@dont-email.me> <vrumke$3hle3$5@dont-email.me>
	<vrun8e$3n7k6$2@dont-email.me> <vrunm9$3hle3$6@dont-email.me>
	<vruogg$3n7k6$3@dont-email.me> <vruosq$3hle3$7@dont-email.me>
	<vrusi1$3tamc$1@dont-email.me> <vrut66$3hle3$8@dont-email.me>
	<vruuae$3tamc$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 21:24:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1744010"; 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: 5831
Lines: 82

Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:57:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/25/2025 1:37 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/25/2025 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2025 12:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2025 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/2025 12:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 11:46 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 12:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 10:17 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 10:02 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 9:45 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 10:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 8:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-24 19:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 7:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is impossible for an actual Turing machine to be input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other TM.
Therefore we encode it.

>>>>>>>>>>>> But a description of a turing machine can be, for example in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the form of source code or a binary.  And a turing machine by
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition *always* behaves the same for a given input when
>>>>>>>>>>>> executing directly.
>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS COUNTER-FACTUAL THAT A MACHINE DESCRIPTION ALWAYS
>>>>>>>>>>> SPECIFIES BEHAVIOR IDENTICAL TO THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED MACHINE.
WTF, a TM is specified by its description.

>>>>>>>>>> That is not the complete description.  The complete description
>>>>>>>>>> consists of the code of III
>>>>>>>>> and the fact that EEE
>>>>>>>> Is called by III makes the code of EEE part of the fixed input,
>>>>>>>> as well as everything that EEE calls down to the OS level.
>>>>>>> Which is not relevant to whether or not III emulated by EEE
>>>>>>> reaches its own final halt state.
>>>>>> Which is why III emulated by EEE is not relevant.
>>>>> Does III emulated by EEE reach its final halt state when III defines
>>>>> a pathological relationship with its emulator?
I don't care what some simulator says, I want to know whether the
direct execution halts, and the simulator better give the same result.

>>>> But that's not the question.  The question is whether or not an H
>>>> exists that behaves as described below:
>>> Turing machines are only capable operating on input finite strings.
>> And those finite strings can be a complete description of a turing
>> machine
> The input to a Turing machine cannot possibly be the actual behavior of
> any executing process.
> A Turing machine can only port on the behavior that a finite string
> input specifies.
And that is its direct execution.

>>> Turing machine computable functions cannot compute anything that their
>>> input doesn't specify.
>> Translation: algorithms only compute what they're programed to compute.
> NO WRONG. Turing machine computable functions cannot compute any mapping
> from anything that their input DOES NOT SAY.
Yes, exactly.

> THEIR INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY SAY THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR OF ANY EXECUTING
> PROCESS
Wrong, that is exactly what the description of a TM says.

>> And the algorithm your EEE is computing is not the mathematical halting
>> function, which has proven to not be computable:
> When HHH rejects DD as specifying a computation that does not reach its
> final halt state HHH IS CORRECT.
No, DD halts.

>>> THEIR INPUT NEVER SPECIFIES THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR OF ANY OTHER TURING
>>> MACHINE
How else would you specify a TM?

>> What a particular turing machine is able to compute doesn't change
>> whether or not the input string fully describes another turing 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.