Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:47:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <vs9f8v$1v2n9$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
 <d2f86fad6c5823e3c098f30d331576c52263b398@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me> <vs2u3v$3mcjm$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs434l$mmcb$3@dont-email.me> <vs45a3$resr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4ne1$1c1ja$1@dont-email.me> <vs4ovc$1e09p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4pg8$1c1ja$6@dont-email.me> <vs4pi9$1e09p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs4qpp$1c1ja$7@dont-email.me> <vs4r2u$1e09p$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs4snt$1c1ja$9@dont-email.me>
 <e11c6f4f29bb0c77dbd10f8e20bca766712977d0@i2pn2.org>
 <vs50kt$1c1ja$15@dont-email.me> <vs5r0j$2f37e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6srk$39556$12@dont-email.me> <vs6t10$2p360$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs70tc$39556$21@dont-email.me> <vs71bq$2p360$10@dont-email.me>
 <vs76m9$3m3q0$1@dont-email.me> <vs77th$2p360$11@dont-email.me>
 <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
 <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me>
 <3ee338aad3b49626722d917050e06afa1f6c46b9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:48:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8";
	logging-data="2067177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3BXrNnBFV/ySlYwyZo1cC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XDh3q1nsJ1ptwh+oqnhHg3GhniI=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <3ee338aad3b49626722d917050e06afa1f6c46b9@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7606

On 3/29/2025 4:14 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:45:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 3/28/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/28/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2025 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I corrected your error dozens of times and you ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these corrections and mindlessly repeat your error like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you've been doing for the last three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Projection, as always.  I'll add the above to the list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of another TM. I proved this many times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in may ways. Ignoring these proofs IT NOT ANY FORM OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REBUTTAL.
> They can report *about* it, by deriving from the description.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure they can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is based on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing computable functions only compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs to outputs.
> Nobody said otherwise.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *its* output, it cannot be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping.
> Not if the guess is always right.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> False.  The only requirement is to map a member of the input
>>>>>>>>>>> domain to a member of the output domain as per the
>>>>>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>> If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed.  It
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter how it's done.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless an input is transformed into an output on the basis of a
>>>>>>>>>> syntactic or semantic property of this input it is not a Turing
>>>>>>>>>> computable function.
>>>>>>>>>> int StringLength(char *S)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>     return 5;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> Does not compute the string length of any string.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> False.  It computes the length of all strings of length 5.
>>>>>>>> It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an algorithm that
>>>>>>>> derive an output on the basis of an input) jack shit it makes a
>>>>>>>> guess.
> There is no notion of relevance here, even if you don't like it. A
> computation is purely mechanical. This function is definitely computable,
> you even gave an implementation!
> 
>>>>>>> Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings that
>>>>>>> have a length of 5, it meets the requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual requirement is to compute the mapping from a finite
>>>>>> string to its length using a sequence of algorithmic steps.
>>>>>> Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a finite string of
>>>>>> machine code to the behavior that this finite string specifies.
> You seem to think the same string could specify many things.
> 
>>>>> With that specifcation DEFINED as the behavior of the machine
>>>>> described when it is actually run.
>>>>>
>>>> In other words the halting problem is defined to not be allowed to use
>>>> computable functions and it is this screwball definition that prevents
>>>> the halting function from being Turing computable.
> wtf no. What functions are you talking about? The successive states (incl.
> tape) of a TM are entirely computable.
> 
>>> The Halting Problem DEFINES THE FUNCTION.
>>>
>> It defines that it must compute the mapping from the direct execution of
>> a Turing Machine contradicting the fact that the direct execution of a
>> TM cannot possibly be an input to a TM.
> 
> Jesus, can't y'all shorten your replies a little, this is not a forum.
> 
> The function does not define anything about how the "mapping" is done;

Except that it must figure out something that the
input finite string actually specifies.

int sum(int x, int y)
{
   return 5;
}

Is not computable function even for sum(2,3).

> there need not be any recognisable derivation. The impossible halting
> decider should only give the correct result, how it does so is irrelevant.
> The mapping is *obviously* not from a TM in execution (whatever is that?)
> but from its description (which is one-to-one). That's a really silly
> strawman. The mapping must be *to* the direct execution, nothing easier
> than that.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer