Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f5efe6f88035d477b7c12bb6f0f6471a941301ab@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrt3gv$264jb$4@dont-email.me>
	<448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org>
	<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> <vs4tot$1e09p$5@dont-email.me>
	<vs50dt$1c1ja$13@dont-email.me> <vs51po$1e09p$6@dont-email.me>
	<vs6nv4$39556$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2097875"; 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: 4518
Lines: 57

Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:57:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports that it is unable to reach the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a program that halts in direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT what HHH is reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, HHH is not a halt decider because it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing the required mapping:

>>>>>>>>> I corrected your error dozens of times and you ignore these
>>>>>>>>> corrections and mindlessly repeat your error like a bot
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is what you've been doing for the last three years.
>>>>>>>> Projection, as always.  I'll add the above to the list.

>>>>> I did not say that no TM can ever report on behavior that matches
>>>>> the behavior of a directly executing TM.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
> A FUNCTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE SQUARE OF A BOX OF ROCKS IS
> ALSO INCORRECT.
It is wrong to ask for the behaviour of the direct execution? Anyways,
HHH can't do it.

-- 
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.