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 14:19:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <vs9h4u$23cav$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs1vuv$2ot1m$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> <vs4srl$1e09p$4@dont-email.me>
 <vs4tj3$1c1ja$11@dont-email.me> <vs4tot$1e09p$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs50dt$1c1ja$13@dont-email.me> <vs51po$1e09p$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs6nv4$39556$1@dont-email.me> <vs6or0$2p360$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6rnk$39556$7@dont-email.me> <vs6sjv$2p360$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs6t79$39556$13@dont-email.me>
 <45b3405a167984b8649777fdc0804b124b21e19b@i2pn2.org>
 <vs9dcd$1v2n9$1@dont-email.me> <vs9em1$20g2j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9ft6$1v2n9$4@dont-email.me> <vs9g1l$20g2j$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:19:59 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8";
	logging-data="2208095"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+q2mps3t0HWlANjWhl/qii"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ch5fbp8uJ3+75fKr2PVT3PJ8DH0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs9g1l$20g2j$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5053

On 3/29/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/29/2025 1:37 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2025 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2025 4:31 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:27:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 1:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:33 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good, because that's all that's required for a solution to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are sometimes when the behavior of TM Description D
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by UTM1 does not match the behavior 
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by UTM2.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because to satisfy the requirements, the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>> the described machine when executed directly must be reported.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I HAVE PROVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS WRONG NITWIT.
>>>>> According to what? WE require it. YOU are answering a different 
>>>>> question.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Category error.
>>>>>>>>> I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt
>>>>>>>>> when executed directly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is 100% impossible for any TM to take another executing TM as 
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>> Quit that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it can take a complete description of a TM that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is not always a perfect proxy for the behavior of the direct 
>>>>>> execution
>>>>>> of the underlying machine.
>>>>
>>>>> Uh yes it is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That my proof that I am correct
>>>> is over your head is less than
>>>> no rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>
>>> The fact that such TM description can be given to a UTM which will 
>>> exactly replicate the behavior of the described TM when executed 
>>> directly proves otherwise is apparently over your head.
>>>
>>
>> One cannot correctly ignore the effect that a specified
>> pathological relationship has between its simulator
>> and its input on the behavior of this input.
>>
> 
> All it means is that HHH does not correctly map DDD to 1 as per the 
> requirements:
> 

int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
In the same way that sum(2,3) cannot be mapped to 7.

Computations apply a set of finite string transformation
rules to an input finite string to derive an output finite
string.

The semantic property that input DDD specifies to HHH
is non-halting.

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