Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 20:08:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b33e34efbd7545a9ac8789359233b7a4053216d0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <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> <vs5qd1$2buf0$2@dont-email.me>
	<vs6sg2$39556$10@dont-email.me> <vs6sq7$2p360$4@dont-email.me>
	<vs6trs$39556$15@dont-email.me>
	<37b71ccbdef6d263119ed4eedb4ae3cbb6b0bf82@i2pn2.org>
	<vs93ds$1fccq$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:08:22 -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: 5762
Lines: 81

Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:25:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/29/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:38:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/28/2025 2:20 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:33 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:
>> 
>>>>>>> I did not say that no TM can ever report on behavior that matches
>>>>>>> the behavior of a directly executing TM.
>> Why can't HHH do it? Explain what pathology is and what it does.

^

>>>>>>> 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.
>> Ridiculous strawman, nobody said that. Are you saying that nothing at
>> all can be computed about TMs?
> If HHH must report on the direct execution of DDD then it must see the
> behavior of the direct execution of DDD and this is always impossible
> for every pair of TMs.
It absolutely should see the direct execution and not blind itself. Do
you think that one cannot compute anything about a TM, even when given
the description?

>>>>>> So we agree that the answer for:
>>>>>> 'Is there an algorithm that can determine for all possible inputs
>>>>>> whether the input specifies a program that (according to the
>>>>>> semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed?'
>>>>>> is 'no'. Correct?
>>>>> In the same way: Is there an algorithm that correctly determines the
>>>>> square root of a box of rocks?
>> Can you just say yes or no for once?
> The inability to determine whether or not this sentence: "What time is
> it?" is true or false is not any instance of undecidability.
> The inability of any TM to report on the behavior of the direct
> execution of any other TM is also not any instance of undecidability.
I meant the question whether you agree. Or was that an agreement?

>>>> In other words, you're saying that there's a TM/input where the
>>>> question of whether or not it halts when executed directly has no
>>>> correct yes or no answer. Show it.
>>> I proved it many times and because you are a Troll you ignored the
>>> proof that by definition no TM can take an executing TM as its input,
>>> thus cannot possibly report on something that it does not see.
>> Where is the proof that some TM has no definite halting status?
> No TM can ever report on the behavior of any directly executed TM
> because no TM has any access to this behavior.
Do you mean that one cannot simulate TMs?

>>> What Boolean value can decider H correctly return when input D is able
>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?
>> And the answer is none, ergo the assumption that an H exists is wrong.
> Likewise by the same reasoning we can prove that some questions have no
> correct answer by allowing incorrect questions.
Why should that question be incorrect? It only mentions a decider, its
return value and another program built on it.

>>> We can reject this question entirely when we discard its false
>>> assumption. D is unable to do the opposite of whatever value that H
>>> returns when H is a simulating halt decider.
>> Oh. That's a rather unorthodox resolution. How do you show that D is
>> impossible?
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> The contradictory part is unreachable code to DD correctly emulated by
> HHH.
You just wrote an "impossible" program. Hm, must not be a program.

-- 
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.