Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH,
 and HHH1 ---
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 21:04:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <vfk3jk$3kr0c$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me>
 <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org>
 <vf9sk6$1sfva$2@dont-email.me>
 <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vfaqe7$21k64$1@dont-email.me>
 <f789d3ef27e3000f04feb3df4fc561c5da02381f@i2pn2.org>
 <vfcbl5$2b6h0$2@dont-email.me>
 <b707850664ad22bb1172006f4e24a27633ff1a4d@i2pn2.org>
 <vfe344$2o992$1@dont-email.me>
 <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org>
 <vfeqqo$2ruhp$1@dont-email.me>
 <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org>
 <vfg6us$36im7$2@dont-email.me>
 <da2d4f48cb3b9ac2e44b6f9c9ab28adb3022acb1@i2pn2.org>
 <vfh428$3bkkv$2@dont-email.me>
 <c72aa667027121011042e8b4413d343f3c61bdd1@i2pn2.org>
 <vfh8vt$3cdsr$2@dont-email.me>
 <8e17863681e1f32f132966f41699e57e5c322b41@i2pn2.org>
 <vfirsv$3ner2$6@dont-email.me> <vfj28k$3j3qf$6@i2pn2.org>
 <vfj2o7$3p235$1@dont-email.me>
 <d0c0bcf21b5f33fc0caf5b49ff29cf5a58d4190d@i2pn2.org>
 <vfj563$3p235$4@dont-email.me> <vfj98i$3iq0i$6@i2pn2.org>
 <vfj9h5$3qg67$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:04:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3828748"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vfj9h5$3qg67$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4063
Lines: 51

On 10/26/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/26/2024 12:35 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:25:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 10/26/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/24 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/26/2024 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and either it follows the rules of the x86 language and NEVER
>>>>>> stop, or it disobeys the requirements of the x86 language to stop its
>>>>>> emulaiton and return.
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words after all of these years you still don't get this:
>>>>>      "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>      until"
>>>>> Repetition to help your ADD see what it keeps missing. Repetition to
>>>>> help your ADD see what it keeps missing. Repetition to help your ADD
>>>>> see what it keeps missing.
>>>>
>>>> But it fails to meet the requirements, because your logic presumes that
>>>> HHH will never abort.
>>>>
>>> Not at all. In the hypothetical case where HHH never aborts then DDD
>>> never stops running.
> 
>> Why hypothetical? The HHH that *this* DDD here calls does abort.
>>
> 
> *The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>      until H correctly determines that *its simulated D would never*
>      *stop running unless aborted* then
> 
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 

Right, but that means that the decider H needs to correctly predict the 
behavior of the input to it, and that a correct simulation of THAT input 
would not halt.

THAT D, calls an H that DOES abort and return, and thus H can not 
correctly predict that it doesn't.

The creation of the hypothetical H doesn't change the H that D calls.

All you are showing are the errors in your method of implementing the 
program, which have made your system not Turing Complete, and thus 
ineligable to be even considered.

Sorry, you are just that stupid.