Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:38:26 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <vs9lo2$26v53$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
 <c93030bbd81fb313c76c256c6e54beb48b07dfdd@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:38:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13640222a42b83ce918b512af2679e23";
	logging-data="2325667"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uwOhT7MHg6/l7oDNIv0de"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nqPa4zDpWhXnaO07GYtRHodJ0QM=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vs9ft6$1v2n9$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4821

Op 29.mrt.2025 om 19:58 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 

When solving a problem, it is stupid to choose a tool that has a 
pathological relation with the problem. If I want to repair a hammer, it 
is stupid to use this same hammer to fix it.
Similarly, to solve the question whether DDD halts, one can use direct 
execution, or a world-class simulator, or even HHH1, but it is stupid to 
choose a solver that has a pathological relation with this input, 
because it is guaranteed that it will give the wrong answer.