Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:27:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <37b71ccbdef6d263119ed4eedb4ae3cbb6b0bf82@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrt3gv$264jb$4@dont-email.me>
	<448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org>
	<vru5tp$38ob9$1@dont-email.me>
	<ac61f679d7ddb39b0ceaedd7f562899d36346535@i2pn2.org>
	<vrvccp$aq8m$3@dont-email.me>
	<e166831a8e02332d64ec151f61481e2629e6e53a@i2pn2.org>
	<vrvsh4$p4vd$2@dont-email.me>
	<c93030bbd81fb313c76c256c6e54beb48b07dfdd@i2pn2.org>
	<vs1vuv$2ot1m$1@dont-email.me>
	<d2f86fad6c5823e3c098f30d331576c52263b398@i2pn2.org>
	<vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me> <vs2u3v$3mcjm$2@dont-email.me>
	<vs434l$mmcb$3@dont-email.me> <vs45a3$resr$1@dont-email.me>
	<vs4ne1$1c1ja$1@dont-email.me> <vs4ovc$1e09p$1@dont-email.me>
	<vs4pg8$1c1ja$6@dont-email.me> <vs4pi9$1e09p$2@dont-email.me>
	<vs4qpp$1c1ja$7@dont-email.me> <vs4r2u$1e09p$3@dont-email.me>
	<vs4snt$1c1ja$9@dont-email.me> <vs4srl$1e09p$4@dont-email.me>
	<vs4tj3$1c1ja$11@dont-email.me> <vs5qd1$2buf0$2@dont-email.me>
	<vs6sg2$39556$10@dont-email.me> <vs6sq7$2p360$4@dont-email.me>
	<vs6trs$39556$15@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:27:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2228780"; 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: 4414
Lines: 56

Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:38:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/28/2025 2:20 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/28/2025 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 4:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 02:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>> I did not say that no TM can ever report on behavior that matches
>>>>> the behavior of a directly executing TM.
Why can't HHH do it? Explain what pathology is and what it does.

>>>>> No TM can every directly see the behavior of the direct execution of
>>>>> any other TM because no TM can take a directly executing TM as an
>>>>> input.
Ridiculous strawman, nobody said that. Are you saying that nothing at
all can be computed about TMs?

>>>> So we agree that the answer for:
>>>> 'Is there an algorithm that can determine for all possible inputs
>>>> whether the input specifies a program that (according to the
>>>> semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed?'
>>>> is 'no'. Correct?
>>>
>>> In the same way: Is there an algorithm that correctly determines the
>>> square root of a box of rocks?
Can you just say yes or no for once?

>> In other words, you're saying that there's a TM/input where the
>> question of whether or not it halts when executed directly has no
>> correct yes or no answer.
>> Show it.
>> 
> I proved it many times and because you are a Troll you ignored the proof
> that by definition no TM can take an executing TM as its input, thus
> cannot possibly report on something that it does not see.
Where is the proof that some TM has no definite halting status?

>> Failure to do so in your next message is your on-the-record admission
>> that the above question is valid.
> 
> When include ALL of the relevant details to the question it becomes:
> What Boolean value can decider H correctly return when input D is able
> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?
And the answer is none, ergo the assumption that an H exists is wrong.

> We can reject this question entirely when we discard its false
> assumption. D is unable to do the opposite of whatever value that H
> returns when H is a simulating halt decider.
Oh. That's a rather unorthodox resolution. How do you show that D
is impossible.

-- 
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.