Path: ...!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 16:49:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f6466aff0d587e71f1a8bdb3bd286ba05c1376c4@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$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>
 <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
 <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me> <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs92l3$1fccq$5@dont-email.me> <vs93ae$1k9u2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9g5p$1v2n9$5@dont-email.me> <vs9gcg$20g2j$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs9h9o$23cav$2@dont-email.me>
 <a5553692a35d9547feca04cf369a33adf7ab1d23@i2pn2.org>
 <vs9lh2$27rl4$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 20:51:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2303767"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vs9lh2$27rl4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4424
Lines: 68

On 3/29/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 2:46 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:22:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/29/2025 2:06 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2025 10:23 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It defines that it must compute the mapping from the direct
>>>>>>>>> execution of a Turing Machine
>> No. The mapping *to*.
>>
>>>>>>>> Which does not require tracing an actual running TM, only mapping
>>>>>>>> properties of the TM described.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key fact that you continue to dishonestly ignore is the concrete
>>>>>>> counter-example that I provided that conclusively proves that the
>>>>>>> finite string of machine code input is not always a valid proxy for
>>>>>>> the behavior of the underlying virtual machine.
> 
>> No, it is a confirmation of the impossibility of a halt decider.
>>
> 
> In the same way that it is impossible to compute the
> actual sum of 2 + 3 as 7.

No, 2 + 3 has the fixed answer of 5

Halting can't be computed, as for every possible halt decider, there 
will be an input which has a defined halting behavior, but the decider 
gave the wrong answer to it.

> 
>>>>>> In other words, you deny the concept of a UTM, which can take a
>>>>>> description of any Turing machine and exactly reproduce the behavior
>>>>>> of the direct execution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I deny that a pathological relationship between a UTM and its input
>>>>> can be correctly ignored.
> 
>> It isn't being ignored. You are saying the direct execution is wrong.
>>
> 
> I am saying that it is incorrect for a termination
> analyzer to report on anything other than the behavior
> that is specified by its actual inputs.

and that behavior is, and only is, the behavior of the program described 
by the input when run.

Since that isn't what your decider matched, it is just wrong.

If you claim it is trying to aswer about some other behavior, then you 
are just admitting you are lying to try to call it a halt decider, and 
admitting to falling into your own strawman error.

> 
>>>> In such a case, the UTM will not halt, and neither will the input when
>>>> executed directly.
>>>
>>> It is not impossible to adapt a UTM such that it correctly simulates a
>>> finite number of steps of an input.
>> There goes universality.
>>
> 
>