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 09:19:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c8d42d8ae414c4a6aba7d6f3ccc7892ee728edc7@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrvccp$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>
	<e11c6f4f29bb0c77dbd10f8e20bca766712977d0@i2pn2.org>
	<vs50kt$1c1ja$15@dont-email.me> <vs5r0j$2f37e$1@dont-email.me>
	<vs6srk$39556$12@dont-email.me> <vs6t10$2p360$6@dont-email.me>
	<vs70tc$39556$21@dont-email.me> <vs71bq$2p360$10@dont-email.me>
	<vs76m9$3m3q0$1@dont-email.me> <vs77th$2p360$11@dont-email.me>
	<vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:19:09 -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: 4718
Lines: 65

Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:38:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>> execution of another TM. I proved this many times in may ways.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignoring these proofs IT NOT ANY FORM OF REBUTTAL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure they can.
>>>>>>>>>> WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles is is
>>>>>>>>>> based on?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input and
>>>>>>>>> Turing computable functions only compute the mapping from inputs
>>>>>>>>> to outputs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to *its*
>>>>>>>> output, it cannot be wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False.  The only requirement is to map a member of the input domain
>>>>>> to a member of the output domain as per the requirements.
>>>>>> If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed.  It doesn't
>>>>>> matter how it's done.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Unless an input is transformed into an output on the basis of a
>>>>> syntactic or semantic property of this input it is not a Turing
>>>>> computable function.
>>>>> int StringLength(char *S)
>>>>> {
>>>>>    return 5;
>>>>> }
>>>>> Does not compute the string length of any string.
>>>>>
>>>> False.  It computes the length of all strings of length 5.
>>>
>>> It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an algorithm that derive
>>> an output on the basis of an input) jack shit it makes a guess.
Even a constant function is a "computation", even if it doesn't actually
do any work.

>> Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings that have
>> a length of 5, it meets the requirement.
> 
> The actual requirement is to compute the mapping from a finite string to
> its length using a sequence of algorithmic steps.
> Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a finite string of
> machine code to the behavior that this finite string specifies.
Do you reckon the direct execution of a TM contradicts the specification?

-- 
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.