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 09:40:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7c6be831cc49aaf017cc15280b99a65ed047d429@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
	<8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
	<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> <vs5qge$2buf0$3@dont-email.me>
	<vs6sj2$39556$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:40:55 -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: 3619
Lines: 41

Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:16:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/28/2025 4:35 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:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:

>>>>> TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior of the direct
>>>>> execution of another TM.
>>>>
>>>> False:
>>>>
>>> I did not say that no TM can ever report on behavior that matches the
>>> behavior of a directly executing TM.
Why does HHH report that the directly executed DDD wouldn't halt?

>>> 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.
Wrong:
>>> The best that any TM can ever do to see what the behavior of another
>>> TM might be is to simulate the machine code (TM description) of this
>>> machine.
>>> When this input defines a pathological relationship with its
>>> simulating half decider this does prevent this simulated machine from
>>> reaching its final halt state.
>>>
>> When solving a problem, it is stupid to choose a tool that has a
>> pathological relation with the problem.
The pathological construction is always possible. It does not depend
on the specific decider.

> The halt decider has always been correct it is the input that cheats.
Now it gets interesting. Given that a halt decider exists, the counter-
input is a perfectly cromulent construction. How do you prove the
assumption correct?

-- 
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.