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: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:29:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5e86ee55c10aa821c6332adde1f72ccdae4ceedf@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs45a3$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> <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs92l3$1fccq$5@dont-email.me> <vs93ae$1k9u2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9g5p$1v2n9$5@dont-email.me> <vs9m5u$26v53$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs9nff$27rl4$5@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 22:31:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2313829"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vs9nff$27rl4$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/29/25 5:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 3:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 29.mrt.2025 om 20:03 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/29/2025 10:23 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It defines that it must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>> the direct execution of a Turing Machine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which does not require tracing an actual running TM, only mapping 
>>>>>> properties of the TM described. 
>>>>>
>>>>> The key fact that you continue to dishonestly ignore
>>>>> is the concrete counter-example that I provided that
>>>>> conclusively proves that the finite string of machine
>>>>> code input is not always a valid proxy for the behavior
>>>>> of the underlying virtual machine.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you deny the concept of a UTM, which can take a 
>>>> description of any Turing machine and exactly reproduce the behavior 
>>>> of the direct execution.
>>>
>>> I deny that a pathological relationship between a UTM and
>>> its input can be correctly ignored.
>>>
>>> When this pathological relationship changes this behavior
>>> we cannot simply pretend that the behavior is not changed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When solving a problem, it is stupid to choose a tool that has a 
>> pathological relation with the problem. 
> 
> A termination analyzer cannot reject itself, yet it can
> reject an input. This input was intentionally defined
> to try to fool this termination analyzer.

But does so in an allowed way.,

> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> On the other hand when this same input DD is simulated
> by the termination analyzer that DD defined a pathological
> relationship to IT DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
> 

Nope, since UTM(DD) halts, DD is a halting input, DEFINTIONS.

> Because of this the contradictory portion of its code
> is unreachable thus cannot possible to the opposite of
> whatever value that HHH returns.

But it IS reachable by the correct emulation by the UTM.

All you have shown is that HHH can't know what the right answer is, 
because all your version will give up before it determines it.

Your problem is that you can't change the definition of the behavior the 
input represents, as that was fixed by the problem statement, so unless 
you admit that you have lied by using a strawman, you are caught in the 
lie that you answer is objectively wrong.

> 
>> If I want to repair a hammer, it is stupid to use this same hammer to 
>> fix it.
>> Similarly, to solve the question whether DDD halts, one can use direct 
>> execution, or a world-class simulator, or even HHH1, but it is stupid 
>> to choose a solver that has a pathological relation with this input, 
>> because it is guaranteed that it will give the wrong answer. (If it 
>> answers.)
>>
> 
>