Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 21:31:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d5709aca70f66affe58643511a2473e67dc81966@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me> <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
 <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me> <vvo71c$rlt$1@news.muc.de>
 <PlNTP.270466$lZjd.128570@fx05.ams4> <vvochv$15td$2@news.muc.de>
 <vvodn5$3na6l$3@dont-email.me>
 <1276edeb9893085c59b02bbbd59fe2c64011736b@i2pn2.org>
 <vvqk4s$gldn$12@dont-email.me>
 <bb4cbe8f07ea2657fa7c19ce626fdb70f8c70e70@i2pn2.org>
 <vvr41q$ks69$2@dont-email.me>
 <25888556ca5d63eba15f3a805e6d952a19e5ec75@i2pn2.org>
 <vvrfch$n9a9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 01:31:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4155220"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vvrfch$n9a9$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4342
Lines: 67

On 5/11/25 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/11/2025 6:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/11/25 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2025 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/25 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/11/2025 6:13 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sat, 10 May 2025 15:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 
>>>>>>>> paper where
>>>>>>>> this alleged mistake was made.  I would be surprised indeed if 
>>>>>>>> you'd
>>>>>>>> even looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it.  Yet you're
>>>>>>>> ready to denigrate his work.
>>>>>>>> Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for 
>>>>>>>> insinuations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is the whole gist of the entire idea of the halting problem proof
>>>>>>> that is wrongheaded.
>>>>>>> (1) It is anchored in the false assumption that an input to a
>>>>>>> termination analyzer can actually do this opposite of whatever value
>>>>>>> that this analyzer returns. No one ever notices that this "do the
>>>>>>> opposite" code is unreachable.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulated DDD doesn't matter. HHH returns to DDD, and DDD then 
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> the opposite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH is only allowed to report on the behavior that
>>>>> its actual input actually specifies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is DEFINED to be the bahavior of the program that the input 
>>>> represents when run.
>>>
>>> When you define 5 == 6 you are simply wrong.
>>> That definition contradicts other axioms.
>>>
>>
>> And where did I do that?
>>
> 
> When the definition of the halting problem requires
> the termination analyzer H to report on behavior besides
> the behavior of the input D simulated by H according
> to the rules of the computational language that the
> input D is encoded within.
> 

Where do you get that behavior to be decided needs to be based on the 
partial simulation of the decider.

You try to call that PARTIAL simulation as according to the rule of the 
language, but it isn't.

If you stipulate that you H actually DOES the emulation that you 
specify, then you have proven that you have effective stipulated that 
you H is not a decider.

Sorry, but your system is based on requiring the existance of a machine 
that can not exist, a machine that can both do a simulation for an 
unbounded number of steps, but still after that return an answer in a 
finite number of steps.

Sorry, you system is just proven to be self-contradictory and totally 
exploded in illogic.