Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:38:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c7828c3213642ca2e314e9fb826c0ab9034184a6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <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> <vs4tot$1e09p$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs50dt$1c1ja$13@dont-email.me> <vs51po$1e09p$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs6nv4$39556$1@dont-email.me> <vs6or0$2p360$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6rnk$39556$7@dont-email.me> <vs6sjv$2p360$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs6t79$39556$13@dont-email.me>
 <45b3405a167984b8649777fdc0804b124b21e19b@i2pn2.org>
 <vs9dcd$1v2n9$1@dont-email.me> <vs9em1$20g2j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9ft6$1v2n9$4@dont-email.me> <vs9g1l$20g2j$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9h4u$23cav$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:46:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2303194"; 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: <vs9h4u$23cav$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5511
Lines: 96

On 3/29/25 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/29/2025 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2025 1:37 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2025 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2025 4:31 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:27:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 1:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:33 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good, because that's all that's required for a solution to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are sometimes when the behavior of TM Description D
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by UTM1 does not match the behavior 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by UTM2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because to satisfy the requirements, the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the described machine when executed directly must be reported.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I HAVE PROVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS WRONG NITWIT.
>>>>>> According to what? WE require it. YOU are answering a different 
>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Category error.
>>>>>>>>>> I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will 
>>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>> when executed directly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is 100% impossible for any TM to take another executing TM 
>>>>>>>>> as its
>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>> Quit that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it can take a complete description of a TM that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is not always a perfect proxy for the behavior of the direct 
>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>> of the underlying machine.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh yes it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That my proof that I am correct
>>>>> is over your head is less than
>>>>> no rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that such TM description can be given to a UTM which will 
>>>> exactly replicate the behavior of the described TM when executed 
>>>> directly proves otherwise is apparently over your head.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One cannot correctly ignore the effect that a specified
>>> pathological relationship has between its simulator
>>> and its input on the behavior of this input.
>>>
>>
>> All it means is that HHH does not correctly map DDD to 1 as per the 
>> requirements:
>>
> 
> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
> In the same way that sum(2,3) cannot be mapped to 7.
> 
> Computations apply a set of finite string transformation
> rules to an input finite string to derive an output finite
> string.

Right, and HHH transform the finite string of the DDD + HHH input to 
non-halting, which thus makes DDD halting, so HHH was wrong.

> 
> The semantic property that input DDD specifies to HHH
> is non-halting.
> 

No, the semantic propery that the input DDD specifies to ANYONE is 
Halting, as DDD will halt. PERIOD (since HHH has been defined to return 
non-halting)

The semantics of an input to a halt decider is, and only is, the program 
the input describes, and whether it will halt when it is run.

Sorry, you are just showing you are trying to us a strawman, since your 
brain is just full of straw.