Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!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: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 09:07:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9268ab163889f92e158caca294e9b8bb8373311c@i2pn2.org>
References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me> <103k0sc$2q38$1@news.muc.de>
 <103k1mc$3j4ha$1@dont-email.me> <103lfn1$ml0$1@dont-email.me>
 <103m813$6dce$1@dont-email.me> <103ol2u$raq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103onmp$rq7e$1@dont-email.me> <103r0ce$1esb9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103rhf6$1hc53$8@dont-email.me>
 <0c50a8ee4efb36cef4271674792a090125187f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <gPg8Q.1988877$4AM6.189428@fx17.ams4>
 <a60543ff9feb748df80b32970c67bb8c7ab13d89@i2pn2.org>
 <tJA8Q.6$r61e.2@fx11.ams4>
 <5e7f84c84b4ed51e195dd33afd9ed7eca89be454@i2pn2.org>
 <F9U8Q.300$ZQ4b.16@fx16.ams4> <1044r60$3v2k1$1@dont-email.me>
 <1045gll$37j5$1@dont-email.me> <1045uma$5p40$1@dont-email.me>
 <1048077$n883$1@dont-email.me> <1048imf$qd4f$3@dont-email.me>
 <68af1e9afd035b838ea3b13ef4bb2c9eabffc3d4@i2pn2.org>
 <1048p9r$sb89$1@dont-email.me>
 <e972561b628a9c0c05d6409ce2614d15a8f89d14@i2pn2.org>
 <10496b4$v1s9$2@dont-email.me>
 <0d70791e42b96be5cdf7d19707944996cc1c5a59@i2pn2.org>
 <1049ka6$12849$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:21:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3479965"; 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: <1049ka6$12849$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 7/4/25 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2025 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/4/25 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2025 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/2025 8:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/4/25 8:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-03 12:56:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-03 02:50:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2025 11:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:12:48 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/25 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO just works off the lie that a correct simulation of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different than the direct execution, even though he can't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> show the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction actually correctly simulated where they differ, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves he is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest he comes is claiming that the simulation of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Call HHH"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be different when simulated then when executed, as for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason" it must be just because otherwise HHH can't do the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, not being able to do something doesn't mean you get 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to redefine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ar4e just showing you are as stupid as he is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator does not have to run a simulation to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> completion if it can
>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that the input, A PROGRAM, never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The most direct way to analyze this is that
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD)==0 and HHH1(DDD)==1 are both correct
>>>>>>>>>>> because DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation and
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD does not call HHH1(DDD) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Either "no" (encoded as 0) or "yes" (encoded as any other 
>>>>>>>>>> number) is the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong asnwer to the quesstion "does DDD specify a halting 
>>>>>>>>>> computation?".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is *not* the actual question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THe actual question is whatever someone asks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the area of a square circle with a radius of 2?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, if the question is
>>>>>>>> not "does DDD specify a halting computation?" or the same about 
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> other computation then it is not in the scope of the halting 
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>> or the termination problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem has always been flatly incorrect
>>>>>>> by making that the question. So I am reframing the
>>>>>>> question the same way that ZFC reframed Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are too stupid to understand it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then tell me where I go wrong on this explanation:
>>>>> ZFC conquered Russell's Paradox by redefining how
>>>>> sets are defined such that a set that is a member
>>>>> of itself can no longer be defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> "ZFC avoids this paradox by using axioms that restrict set formation."
>>>>
>>>> And what does that distraction have to do with halting problem?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Changing the definition of the problem is a way to solve it*
>>>
>>
>> But you aren't allowed to do that.
>>
>> Note, ZFC doesn't solve the problem of Russell's Paradox in Naive Set 
>> Theory, as it doesn't do anything to Naive Set Theory.
>>
> 
> It replaced the erroneous naive set theory thus
> conquering the misconception of Russell's Paradox.

Yes, by creating a totally new system.

Note, The don't say that Russell's Paradox no longer exists in Naive Set 
Theory, they

> 
> Likewise I am conquering the misconception that
> partial halt deciders must report on the behavior
> of directly executed Turing machines.
> 

But you aren't making a totally new system, just lying about the 
existing system. In Computability Theory, reporting on the behavior of 
the direct execution of a Turing Machine is a valid operation. To say it 
isn't is just a lie.

You are not making a new system as you say that in Computability Theory, 
the Halting Problem is wrong, but then here you imply a claim you are 
making a new theory (which you haven't actually worked to define) by 
your false comparison to ZFC and thus not doing anything in the 
classical Computability Theory,

You are just showing a fundamental confusion of how logic theories work, 
showing how stupid you are.