Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:06:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4321fb68ec89ae55e5e1c082c43cbc00fb1139ae@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrvccp$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> <vs4tot$1e09p$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs50dt$1c1ja$13@dont-email.me> <vs51po$1e09p$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs6nv4$39556$1@dont-email.me>
 <f5efe6f88035d477b7c12bb6f0f6471a941301ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vs6ru7$39556$8@dont-email.me> <vs6sks$2p360$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs6t9q$39556$14@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:20:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2173613"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vs6t9q$39556$14@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5829
Lines: 88

On 3/28/25 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/28/2025 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/28/2025 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 1:07 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:57:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:33 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports that it is unable to reach the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a program that halts in direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT what HHH is reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, HHH is not a halt decider because it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing the required mapping:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I corrected your error dozens of times and you ignore these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrections and mindlessly repeat your error like a bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you've been doing for the last three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Projection, as always.  I'll add the above to the list.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did not say that no TM can ever report on behavior that matches
>>>>>>>>> the behavior of a directly executing TM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good, because that's all that's required for a solution to the
>>>>>>>> halting problem:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are sometimes when the behavior of TM Description D correctly
>>>>>>> simulated by UTM1 does not match the behavior correctly simulated by
>>>>>>> UTM2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant, because to satisfy the requirements, the behavior of the
>>>>>> described machine when executed directly must be reported.
>>>>>
>>>>> I HAVE PROVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS WRONG NITWIT.
>>>>> A FUNCTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE SQUARE OF A BOX OF ROCKS IS
>>>>> ALSO INCORRECT.
>>>
>>>> It is wrong to ask for the behaviour of the direct execution? Anyways,
>>>> HHH can't do it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless and until one TM can take another executing
>>> TM as an input IT IS WRONG TO REQUIRE A TM TO REPORT
>>> ON SOMETHING THAT IT CANNOT SEE.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, you agree that Linz is correct.
> 
> Incorrect problems lack correct solutions because they
> incorrect problems.
> 

But the "problem" (the question about a given machine) HAS a correct 
solution, it is just a fact that the decider doesn't give it.

Thus the problem is valid.

The fact that we can't make any machine that solves the full set of 
problems means that the set of problems in just non-computable, which is 
a valid answer to the question of can we build such a machine.

You just don't understand what the actual questions are, and thus get 
confused about their validity.

And this is because you have built a strawman to try to solve that 
doesn't meet the requirements of the problem (since a program must 
include ALL its code, and thus it isn't just the "C function" you want 
to make the input).