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 16:37:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <vs9p7n$27rl4$8@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vs9h4u$23cav$1@dont-email.me> <vs9hfq$20g2j$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs9in5$23cav$3@dont-email.me> <vs9k5l$26cg5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:38:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8";
	logging-data="2354852"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+lxLSeWPEngBpbQDN/jFOl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yV8jpP2/BMEPvh5ej9GI8FRsLDA=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs9k5l$26cg5$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 5910

On 3/29/2025 3:11 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/29/2025 2:25 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2025 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It can, it just wouldn't meet the requirements of the mathematical 
>>> "sum" function.
>>>
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> Likewise if HHH reported on the behavior of the
>> directly executed DD 
> 
> It would be behaving as required:
> 

Requiring a halt decider to not be able to return
is an incorrect requirement. It is required to outsmart
such attempts.

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