Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 12:48:25 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <vvv81p$1ov7e$2@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$12@dont-email.me>
 <bb4cbe8f07ea2657fa7c19ce626fdb70f8c70e70@i2pn2.org>
 <vvr41q$ks69$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 12:48:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0f93063a85412bb9b83b70aeb6dff6a7";
	logging-data="1866990"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/f/4eLwGeDPXqWD49UiLC2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PUgNrUntknln2irZ4rYsFkmuGj8=
In-Reply-To: <vvr41q$ks69$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 11.mei.2025 om 23:15 schreef olcott:
> On 5/11/2025 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/11/25 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2025 6:13 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 10 May 2025 15:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 paper 
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> this alleged mistake was made.  I would be surprised indeed if you'd
>>>>>> even looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it.  Yet you're
>>>>>> ready to denigrate his work.
>>>>>> Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for 
>>>>>> insinuations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is the whole gist of the entire idea of the halting problem proof
>>>>> that is wrongheaded.
>>>>> (1) It is anchored in the false assumption that an input to a
>>>>> termination analyzer can actually do this opposite of whatever value
>>>>> that this analyzer returns. No one ever notices that this "do the
>>>>> opposite" code is unreachable.
>>>
>>>> The simulated DDD doesn't matter. HHH returns to DDD, and DDD then does
>>>> the opposite.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH is only allowed to report on the behavior that
>>> its actual input actually specifies.
>>
>>
>> Which is DEFINED to be the bahavior of the program that the input 
>> represents when run.
> 
> When you define 5 == 6 you are simply wrong.
> That definition contradicts other axioms.
> 

Saying that 5 == 6 is the same as saying that the  HHH that aborts is 
exactly the same as the HHH that does not abort. (Both have only a tiny 
difference.)