Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: Mon, 12 May 2025 22:59:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f606204043e2404ac63da8f520e360f4b96d63d4@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$12@dont-email.me> <vvqln4$g8ck$5@dont-email.me>
 <vvrftj$ndkg$1@dont-email.me> <vvrima$nejb$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvua3t$1hm37$1@dont-email.me> <vvuavo$1deu5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 03:53:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="124170"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvuavo$1deu5$2@dont-email.me>

On 5/12/25 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2025 9:17 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 12/05/2025 02:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2025 01:38, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 11/05/2025 18:11, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 11/05/2025 17:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Any yes/no question where both yes and no are the
>>>>>> wrong answer is an incorrect polar question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either DD stops or it doesn't (once it's been hacked around to get 
>>>>> it to compile and after we've leeched out all the dodgy programming).
>>>>
>>>> Done that.
>>>
>>> And you still had code left?
>>>
>>>> It still stops.
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>>>> If the computer cannot correctly decide whether or not DD halts, 
>>>>
>>>> The decider says it doesn't stop..
>>>
>>> I said "cannot >>>correctly<<< decide".
>>
>> There are infinitely many deciders that could be given the input.  
>> Some of them decide that particular input correctly, and some 
>> incorrectly.
>>
>> PO's HHH is one of the ones that decide incorrectly.
>>
> 
> When "correctly" means to report on behavior besides
> that behavior that the input actually specifies then
> it is wrong.

Right, so the behavior of the partial emulation done by HHH is wrong.

By defintion, the behavior *IS* the behavior of the directly executed 
program it represents.

> 
> When 2 + 3 = 5 this is determined by the rules
> of arithmetic.
> 
> When the behavior that the input specifies according
> to the rules of the x86 language is non-halting then
> HHH must report on this behavior.

But the behavior that the input specifies by those rules is HALTING, as 
that is what the actual sequence of the actual instructions of what you 
consider to be the input (The DDD calling the HHH that is at that 
location, which is the HHH that aborts and returns 0)'

So, by your requirement, HHH MUST return 1, but it returns 0,

> 
> HHH cannot compute the mapping from its input to
> the behavior of the directly executed DD() for the
> same reason that

So? That is its problem, that *IS* the behavior of the input that it 
must report on.

> 
> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
> sum(3,2) can not compute any mapping to sum 5 + 7.
> THE INPUT SPECIFIES SOMETHING ELSE.
> 
> 

Right, the input DDD calls the HHH that aborts and returns 0, and thus 
is haltig.

For HHH to presume (incorrectly) that the HHH that DDD calls will be 
something different and never return is just an error, an error cause by 
YOU the programmer being ignorant of what he was supposed to be doing 
and the rules that he was supposed to follow.

Thus, YOU ARE JUST WRONG.