Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 20:58:28 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <vvrh3k$mv2a$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me> <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
 <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me> <vvo71c$rlt$1@news.muc.de>
 <PlNTP.270466$lZjd.128570@fx05.ams4> <vvochv$15td$2@news.muc.de>
 <vvodn5$3na6l$3@dont-email.me>
 <1276edeb9893085c59b02bbbd59fe2c64011736b@i2pn2.org>
 <vvqk4s$gldn$12@dont-email.me> <vvqln4$g8ck$5@dont-email.me>
 <vvrftj$ndkg$1@dont-email.me> <vvrggs$n9a9$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 02:58:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d587ba6f088c47ed8fd2ad250ebfd646";
	logging-data="752714"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WH9yvUWtx3OwLtQoN62z/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uKa9XwA4VOgiG8DtO7BtNykXJxE=
In-Reply-To: <vvrggs$n9a9$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/11/2025 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/11/2025 7:38 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 11/05/2025 18:11, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 11/05/2025 17:44, olcott wrote:
>>>> Any yes/no question where both yes and no are the
>>>> wrong answer is an incorrect polar question.
>>>
>>> Either DD stops or it doesn't (once it's been hacked around to get it 
>>> to compile and after we've leeched out all the dodgy programming).
>>
>> Done that.  It still stops.
>>
>>>
>>> If the computer cannot correctly decide whether or not DD halts, 
>>
>> The decider says it doesn't stop..
>>
>>> we have an undecidable computation, 
>>
>> No no, that doesn't make sense.  DD stops, and there are lots of 
>> partial halt deciders that will decide that particular input 
>> correctly.  PO's DD isn't "undecidable".
>>
>> No single computation can be undecidable, considered on its own!  
>> There are only two possibilities: it halts or it doesn't.  In either 
>> case there is a decider which decides that /one specific input/ 
>> correctly. By extension, any finite number of computations is 
>> decidable - we just have a giant switch statement followed by 
>> returning halts/neverhalts as appropriate.  If the input domain has 
>> just n inputs, there are 2^n trivial deciders that together cater for 
>> every combination of each input halting or never halting.  One of 
>> those deciders is a correct decider for that (finite domain) problem.
>>
>> The HP is asking for a TM (or equiv.) that correctly decides EVERY 
>> (P,I) in its one finite algorithm.  That is what is proven 
>> impossible.  The trick of having a big switch statement no longer 
>> works because there are infinitely many possible inputs.
>>
>> Decidability for just one single input is trivial and not intersting.
>>
>>> and therefore some computations are undecidable, so Turing's 
>>> conclusion was right. Who knew? (Apart from practically everybody 
>>> else, I mean.)
>>
>>
>> Mike.
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH according to the rules of
> the computational language that DD is encoded
> within 

Doesn't happen, as you have admitted on the record:


On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH