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, 16 Jul 2024 21:10:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bdb3b9586e0219de16ef4b5731376196aaebd414@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <97e0632d0d889d141bdc6005ce6e513c53867798@i2pn2.org>
 <v6sdlu$382g0$1@dont-email.me> <v6td3a$3ge79$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tp1j$3imib$2@dont-email.me> <v6trdu$3irhh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tu01$3imib$11@dont-email.me>
 <a177dd76613794d6bb877c65ffe6c587a8f31bc1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6tvpv$3imib$14@dont-email.me>
 <091e8b7baeea467ee894b1c79c8943cb9773adb7@i2pn2.org>
 <v6u346$3khl8$1@dont-email.me>
 <16ac79611a441e7e01119631051f69119eee958a@i2pn2.org>
 <v6v06i$3pivt$1@dont-email.me>
 <23cb2d2401b87bf4f6a604aa1a78b93ffc9a29bc@i2pn2.org>
 <v6v2t1$3pmjn$3@dont-email.me>
 <3fc6548531f91ed14a27420caf9679a634573ed0@i2pn2.org>
 <v70lmo$61d8$1@dont-email.me> <v72lf4$k738$1@dont-email.me>
 <v738pr$mjis$15@dont-email.me> <v758hs$163gs$1@dont-email.me>
 <v76d3f$1cf96$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 01:10:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3536827"; 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: <v76d3f$1cf96$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4294
Lines: 62

On 7/16/24 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/16/2024 2:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-15 13:39:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-14 14:00:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> According to the theory of computation the DDD that calls
>>>>> HHH(DDD) is not in the domain of HHH.
>>>>
>>>> The theory of computation does not say what the domain of HHH is.
>>>
>>> Sure it does. Where the Hell have you been?
>>> It says that the halting problem is defined in terms
>>> of finite strings that encode Turing machines.
>>
>> No, it does not. The halting problem is not a part of any theory of
>> computation. It is a question that one maight expect the theory of
>> computation to answer.
>>
>> Note that the halting problem does not specify how Turing machines
>> should be encoded to finite strings. It meresly requires that the
>> solution includes encoding rules so that every Turing machine can be
>> encoded.
>>
> 
> The theory of computation only allows finite string inputs.
> It does not allow the currently executing Turing Machine
> to be its own input.
> 

But it does allow the finite string represention of that machine to be 
given as the input, and that string represent that machine, and the 
behavior that machine does when it is run,

You are just stuck in your own world of lies and you words just show how 
stupid and ignorant you have made yourself.

A decider CAN be asked about itself (by giving the description of itself 
to it) or about a program that uses a copy of that decider (again, by 
given the descirption of that machine). You just need to try to pretend 
that it isn't allowed because that it what the proof uses.

Of cource. just like the Diagonalization proof you claimed to have and 
then called nonsense, you will not be able to show any actual rule like 
what you quote, mostly because you are just totally ignorant about the 
rules of computation, and all you think you know are made up "facts" 
based on your casual reading about it.

>>>> Unless the specificaiton of HHH says otherwise HHH should be able
>>>> to handle every input that can be given to it,
>>>
>>> No halt decider is allowed to report on the computation
>>> that it is contained within for several different reasons
>>> one of them is that computations are not finite strings.
>>
>> The halting problem requires that every Turing machine computation
>> can be given as input.
>>
>> A partial halt decider may fail to answer for some computations.
>>
>