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 HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:18:01 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <v756r9$15qot$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me> <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de> <v6mjlg$20sio$2@dont-email.me> <v6mlfj$bbr$2@news.muc.de> <v6mlk6$21d9q$1@dont-email.me> <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me> <v6op7v$2fuva$5@dont-email.me> <v6qoms$2ukg7$1@dont-email.me> <v6rat7$30qtt$8@dont-email.me> <v6repr$32501$2@dont-email.me> <v6tbpe$3gg4d$1@dont-email.me> <v6traj$3imib$7@dont-email.me> <v703f7$2ooi$2@dont-email.me> <v70of6$61d8$8@dont-email.me> <v72kp6$k3b1$1@dont-email.me> <v738db$mjis$14@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:18:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99a13b02fce255176e717749a711055d";
	logging-data="1239837"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zjGvlzGTYPIaypQxw2BZN"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4zHhCVLoVskUGl+oweP4jmvUwB4=
Bytes: 2984

On 2024-07-15 13:32:27 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/15/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-14 14:48:05 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>> 
>>> When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance
>>> then your disagreement has no actual basis.
>>> 
>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>> 
>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
>>> with arithmetic.
>> 
>> A lame analogy. A better one is: 2 + 3 = 5 is a proven theorem just
>> like the uncomputability of halting is.
> 
> The uncomputability of halting is only proven when the problem
> is framed this way: HHH is required to report on the behavior
> of an input that was defined to do exactly the opposite of
> whatever DDD reports.

No, it is proven about the halting problem as that problem is.
The program that predicts what HHH would say and does the opposite
is just one eample of a program.

> When HHH is defined such that an input that was defined to
> do the opposite of whatever HHH reports can never reach this
> point in its execution trace then the prior halting problem
> proof has been defeated.

No, not anymore that 2 + 3 = 5 is defeated by a 2 that is defined to
shrink to 1 if 3 is added to it.

-- 
Mikko