Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: Fri, 9 May 2025 22:30:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <333c8b6f6e812540c009a5e10118b00c57adb3c6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me> <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me> <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me> <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me> <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me> <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me> <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me>
 <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4> <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me> <87a57mek8r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjgh7$28g5i$4@dont-email.me> <87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjobj$28g5i$11@dont-email.me> <87zffmbeyt.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvm1ih$33907$1@dont-email.me> <vvm6ku$34h6f$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvm7tl$34mm4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 02:35:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3883114"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvm7tl$34mm4$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/9/25 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 10/05/2025 00:02, olcott wrote:
>>> Correctly emulating one or more instructions <is>
>>> the correct emulation of 1 or more instructions
>>> of DD. This is a truism.
>>
>> No, it's not. Correct emulation would entail accurately simulating the 
>> whole of DDD's behaviour.
>>
> 
> It is stupidly wrong to require the complete
> emulation of a non-terminating input.
> 

Nope, as that *IS* the definition of a correct emulation of a 
non-halting input, as the definition of "correcdt emulation" is to 
exactly reproduce the behavior of that program, so if the program won't 
halt, neither can the emulation.

The key point is that the decider isn't required to do such a correct 
simulation (except in your brokne theory) but just answer about what 
such a emulation would do if done.

basicaly, one fundamental that you should have seen from your work that 
it is impossible for one program to be both a correct decider and a 
correct emulator, and thus the definition of the correct answer can not 
be based on the correct emulation by itself. That is just invoking a 
logical contradiction, and your system is basically built on the 
acceptance of the liar's paradox as a valid statement.