Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand
 computable functions
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:47:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5frvl$14bcm$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
 <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me>
 <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v5ejou$1j1no$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 01:47:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1191318"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5ejou$1j1no$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4142
Lines: 67

On 6/25/24 10:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2024 9:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>
>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
>>>
>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when 
>>>>>> DDD is
>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly
>>>>>> return.
>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>>
>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.
>>>
>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes.  Joes's point is that H0
>>> should terminate because it's a decider.  You're saying that when H0 is
>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate.  I don't recall seeing 
>>> anybody
>>> arguing against that.
>>>
>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider.  I don't think anybody
>>> else would argue against that, either.
>>
>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years.  It
>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the
>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator
>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was
>> detected.  He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for
>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(),
>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"!
>>
>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is.
>>
> 
> *Ben fails to sufficiently understand Computable Functions*

No, Peter Olcott fails to understand what he is talking about.

There is no requirement that 'Halting' even BE a computable function, 
and in fact has been proven not to be one.

So, an argument based on it being one, starts off with a LIE.

> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of
> the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that
> a function is computable if there exists an algorithm
> that can do the job of the function, i.e.
> 
> *given an input of the function domain*
> *it can return the corresponding output*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> 
>