Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 19:39:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <25888556ca5d63eba15f3a805e6d952a19e5ec75@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me> <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
 <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me> <vvo71c$rlt$1@news.muc.de>
 <PlNTP.270466$lZjd.128570@fx05.ams4> <vvochv$15td$2@news.muc.de>
 <vvodn5$3na6l$3@dont-email.me>
 <1276edeb9893085c59b02bbbd59fe2c64011736b@i2pn2.org>
 <vvqk4s$gldn$12@dont-email.me>
 <bb4cbe8f07ea2657fa7c19ce626fdb70f8c70e70@i2pn2.org>
 <vvr41q$ks69$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 23:39:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4145107"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvr41q$ks69$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3731
Lines: 53

On 5/11/25 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/11/2025 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/11/25 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2025 6:13 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 10 May 2025 15:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 paper 
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> this alleged mistake was made.  I would be surprised indeed if you'd
>>>>>> even looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it.  Yet you're
>>>>>> ready to denigrate his work.
>>>>>> Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for 
>>>>>> insinuations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is the whole gist of the entire idea of the halting problem proof
>>>>> that is wrongheaded.
>>>>> (1) It is anchored in the false assumption that an input to a
>>>>> termination analyzer can actually do this opposite of whatever value
>>>>> that this analyzer returns. No one ever notices that this "do the
>>>>> opposite" code is unreachable.
>>>
>>>> The simulated DDD doesn't matter. HHH returns to DDD, and DDD then does
>>>> the opposite.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH is only allowed to report on the behavior that
>>> its actual input actually specifies.
>>
>>
>> Which is DEFINED to be the bahavior of the program that the input 
>> represents when run.
> 
> When you define 5 == 6 you are simply wrong.
> That definition contradicts other axioms.
> 

And where did I do that?

Show your source of the words actually defined by reliable sources that 
make my claim wrong.

After all, the statement of the Halting problem from one of your 
favorite sources is:

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an 
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.

If that isn't talking about the direct execution of the program, what is 
it talking about?

That you don't like that definition, is your problem, and just shows you 
don't like that some rules just make your ideas wrong.