Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 09:31:33 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <45b3405a167984b8649777fdc0804b124b21e19b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
	<ac61f679d7ddb39b0ceaedd7f562899d36346535@i2pn2.org>
	<vrvccp$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> <vs4tot$1e09p$5@dont-email.me>
	<vs50dt$1c1ja$13@dont-email.me> <vs51po$1e09p$6@dont-email.me>
	<vs6nv4$39556$1@dont-email.me> <vs6or0$2p360$1@dont-email.me>
	<vs6rnk$39556$7@dont-email.me> <vs6sjv$2p360$2@dont-email.me>
	<vs6t79$39556$13@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:31:33 -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: 3784
Lines: 47

Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:27:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/28/2025 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/28/2025 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 1:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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:

>>>>>>>> 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.
According to what? WE require it. YOU are answering a different question.

>>>> Category error.
>>>> I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt
>>>> when executed directly.
>>>
>>> It is 100% impossible for any TM to take another executing TM as its
>>> input.
Quit that.

>> But it can take a complete description of a TM that
> 
> Is not always a perfect proxy for the behavior of the direct execution
> of the underlying machine.
Uh yes it is.

> I have proven this hundreds and hundreds of times over several years.
> PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE CANNOT SIMPLY BE IGNORED. IT IS EITHER
> MORONIC OR DISHONEST TO DO SO.
Simulation by the called simulator is not direct execution.

-- 
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.