Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved
 criteria is met
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:38:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v5k824$2qsdr$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4s9hj$1dnm7$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> <v5el8c$24l4$4@news.muc.de>
 <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me> <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me> <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5fuf7$1up2o$1@dont-email.me> <v5gk7m$22b20$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h3aj$24jbd$5@dont-email.me> <v5j4p0$2ksq3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5jrrq$2o58l$4@dont-email.me> <v5k0ru$2q29e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5k5ko$2qsdr$1@dont-email.me> <v5k79o$19nfi$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:38:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b";
	logging-data="2978235"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192PUz822ZBprek8CfoI1C7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8zAXiYbO4yVIBO57aITcoBvwGxM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5k79o$19nfi$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5283

On 6/27/2024 12:25 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:56:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/27/2024 10:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-27 14:10:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> On 6/27/2024 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-26 12:58:59 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-26 02:29:59 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
> 
>>>>>> If this was true then everyone here would already know that H(P,P)
>>>>>> is not even being asked about the behavior of the directly executed
>>>>>> P(P).
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone knwos that H(P,P) is not asked anything.
>>>>>
>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a
>>>> decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as a
>>>> yes–no question of the input values.
>>>
>>> That's right. But that question cannot be presented to the decider.
>>> Only the input values can.
>>>
>> In other words you are saying that Turing machines do not typically
>> understand English.

> No. The input is merely a variable in the question. The question is
> implicit.
> 
Not at all. That is flat out incorrect.
The input is a specific finite string of bytes that
has the semantics of the x86 programming language.

>> None-the-less no-one here understands that every halt decider is only
>> required to report on the behavior that its actual input actually maps
>> to.

> That is a tautology: „It must simulate that way that it can.”
> But it is not free to make something up and claim itself infallible
> 
DDD correctly simulated by H0 cannot possible halt.
The same thing goes for the conventional halting problem input.

>> Instead everyone here expects that the halt decider must map to the
>> English description of what the authors of textbooks expect it to map
>> to.

> That is the definition of a halt decider. If it does not fit that
> definition, it is not one.
> 

We could "define" a zipangnitfark as a square circle
that has a radius of a zebra with each equally
length side having the length of a misconception.

Some definitions ARE incorrect.

>> *DDD simulated by H0 DOES NOT HALT*
> *incorrectly
> Yes, it does not halt. That is a wrong simulation, as DDD does halt.
> 
>> Everyone here stupidly ignores that the pathological relationship that
>> DDD calls H0(DDD) changes the behavior of DDD.
> A simulator can’t change the behaviour of its input, it is bound by it.
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer