Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:25:18 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <v5lvhu$39e8b$1@dont-email.me>
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> <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> <v5k824$2qsdr$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:25:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7b5d45ea651ac5e859b2687eb76fd47";
	logging-data="3455243"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jq6pxntyFEbEtmf1wzXqa"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zYdm/fGPDOAV+ZldThdTgPc3/Gk=
Bytes: 5294

On 2024-06-27 17:38:12 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

You are wrong. The input is the variable in the question. The question
is not a part of the input.

> The input is a specific finite string of bytes that
> has the semantics of the x86 programming language.

For a decider that is made for that sort of input. But there cannot be
any question in that input.

>>> 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.

That definition is not incorrect. It may be unsuitable for your purposes
but that does not make it incorrect. All parts of a good definition are
there: the term for the concept, the superconcept, and the differentiating
feature. Definitions like this would be a great improvement to your
writings.

-- 
Mikko