Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as
 non-halting V2
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 22:15:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9e77e281576728ed0ebeffcd34c8dc19569b847b@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <3fc6548531f91ed14a27420caf9679a634573ed0@i2pn2.org>
 <v70lmo$61d8$1@dont-email.me>
 <8a6e6d9ff49aabe2525ce5729a439c807de4768a@i2pn2.org>
 <34Ocnd4voeWlDAn7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v725d7$hlvg$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa7643b6d8c46d2c4dd5ef92ae3650afe114adbb@i2pn2.org>
 <v734ct$mjis$2@dont-email.me>
 <056325e336f81a50f4fb9e60f90934eaac823d22@i2pn2.org>
 <v73gk2$obtd$1@dont-email.me>
 <e2958e7ea04d53590c79b53bfb4bc9dff468772b@i2pn2.org>
 <v742r2$s48s$2@dont-email.me>
 <210383b2ee318f68a96d94aec314ee8b93f79b7f@i2pn2.org>
 <v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me>
 <fde630817c49562bc765bdbc98e16a1582bcad53@i2pn2.org>
 <v78mda$1smtm$2@dont-email.me> <v7d5cl$2t3ja$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ds0o$30pvh$3@dont-email.me> <v7fs29$3f4g7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7gd17$3hlc2$2@dont-email.me> <v7ikn4$1jv5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7j2pg$3o7r$3@dont-email.me> <v7l3di$idv1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lnrf$luh0$1@dont-email.me> <v7niqp$13ghd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7obbn$17h8r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 02:15:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="142535"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7obbn$17h8r$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4931
Lines: 75

On 7/23/24 9:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/23/2024 1:32 AM, 0 wrote:
>> On 2024-07-22 13:46:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-21 13:34:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude
>>>>>>>>> that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it
>>>>>>>>> only repeats until aborted and is aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about
>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to
>>>>>>>> say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply 
>>>>>>> lying*
>>>>>>> int main
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    DDD();
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
>>>>>>> or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the lying one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If HHH(DDD) abrots its simulation and returns true it is correct as a
>>>>>> halt decider for DDD really halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) We know that a decider is not allowed to report on the behavior
>>>>> computation that itself is contained within.
>>>>
>>>> No, we don't. There is no such prohibition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Turing machines never take actual Turing machines as inputs.
>>> They only take finite strings as inputs and an actual executing
>>> Turing machine is not itself a finite string.
>>
>> The definition of a Turing machine does not say that a Turing machine
>> is not a finite string. It is an abstract mathematical object without
>> a specification of its exact nature. It could be a set or a finite
>> string. Its exact nature is not relevant to the theory of computation,
>> which only cares about certain properties of Turing machines.
>>
>>> Therefore It is not allowed to report on its own behavior.
>>
>> Anyway, that does not follow. The theory of Turing machines does not
>> prohibit anything.
>>
>>> Another different TM can take the TM description of this
>>> machine and thus accurately report on its actual behavior.
>>
>> If a Turing machine can take a description of a TM as its input
>> or as a part of its input it can also take its own description.
>> Every Turing machine can be given its own description as input
>> but a Turing machine may interprete it as something else.
>>
> In this case we have two x86utm machines that are identical
> except that DDD calls HHH and DDD does not call HHH1.
> 
> It is empirically proven that this changes their behavior
> and the behavior of DDD.
> 

WHich shows that your system isn't the equivalent of the Turing Machines 
you claimed, and thus your admission to being a LIAR.