Path: ...!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: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:50:51 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4e934be3dc06717c9411d5e73d58796bce7647cf@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <e11c6f4f29bb0c77dbd10f8e20bca766712977d0@i2pn2.org>
 <vs50kt$1c1ja$15@dont-email.me> <vs5r0j$2f37e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6srk$39556$12@dont-email.me> <vs6t10$2p360$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs70tc$39556$21@dont-email.me> <vs71bq$2p360$10@dont-email.me>
 <vs76m9$3m3q0$1@dont-email.me> <vs77th$2p360$11@dont-email.me>
 <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
 <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me>
 <3ee338aad3b49626722d917050e06afa1f6c46b9@i2pn2.org>
 <vs9f8v$1v2n9$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:54:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2291387"; 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: <vs9f8v$1v2n9$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7568
Lines: 130

On 3/29/25 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 4:14 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:45:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/28/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of another TM. I proved this many times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in may ways. Ignoring these proofs IT NOT ANY FORM OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REBUTTAL.
>> They can report *about* it, by deriving from the description.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure they can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is based on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing computable functions only compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs to outputs.
>> Nobody said otherwise.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *its* output, it cannot be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping.
>> Not if the guess is always right.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> False.  The only requirement is to map a member of the input
>>>>>>>>>>>> domain to a member of the output domain as per the
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed.  It
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter how it's done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless an input is transformed into an output on the basis of a
>>>>>>>>>>> syntactic or semantic property of this input it is not a Turing
>>>>>>>>>>> computable function.
>>>>>>>>>>> int StringLength(char *S)
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>     return 5;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> Does not compute the string length of any string.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> False.  It computes the length of all strings of length 5.
>>>>>>>>> It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an algorithm that
>>>>>>>>> derive an output on the basis of an input) jack shit it makes a
>>>>>>>>> guess.
>> There is no notion of relevance here, even if you don't like it. A
>> computation is purely mechanical. This function is definitely computable,
>> you even gave an implementation!
>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings that
>>>>>>>> have a length of 5, it meets the requirement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The actual requirement is to compute the mapping from a finite
>>>>>>> string to its length using a sequence of algorithmic steps.
>>>>>>> Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a finite string of
>>>>>>> machine code to the behavior that this finite string specifies.
>> You seem to think the same string could specify many things.
>>
>>>>>> With that specifcation DEFINED as the behavior of the machine
>>>>>> described when it is actually run.
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words the halting problem is defined to not be allowed to use
>>>>> computable functions and it is this screwball definition that prevents
>>>>> the halting function from being Turing computable.
>> wtf no. What functions are you talking about? The successive states 
>> (incl.
>> tape) of a TM are entirely computable.
>>
>>>> The Halting Problem DEFINES THE FUNCTION.
>>>>
>>> It defines that it must compute the mapping from the direct execution of
>>> a Turing Machine contradicting the fact that the direct execution of a
>>> TM cannot possibly be an input to a TM.
>>
>> Jesus, can't y'all shorten your replies a little, this is not a forum.
>>
>> The function does not define anything about how the "mapping" is done;
> 
> Except that it must figure out something that the
> input finite string actually specifies.
> 
> int sum(int x, int y)
> {
>    return 5;
> }
> 
> Is not computable function even for sum(2,3).

Sure it is, is the function sum(x, y) -> 5

That is a function.

Functions are allowed to ignore some (or all) of their inputs.

> 
>> there need not be any recognisable derivation. The impossible halting
>> decider should only give the correct result, how it does so is 
>> irrelevant.
>> The mapping is *obviously* not from a TM in execution (whatever is that?)
>> but from its description (which is one-to-one). That's a really silly
>> strawman. The mapping must be *to* the direct execution, nothing easier
>> than that.
>>
> 
>