Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 12:03:17 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org> <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org> <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org> <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org> <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 11:03:17 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95f82fff232bc6bc7a9468aae2b1cef6"; logging-data="708068"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lknP/PNEdBCUmIgTX/+KQ" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:EPtJmKb0oLjwKMDrQv6zYGSv3RM= Bytes: 4819 On 2024-08-08 13:18:34 +0000, olcott said: > On 8/8/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-08-08 04:41:11 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 8/7/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 8/7/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/7/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 8/7/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/7/2024 1:02 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:54:41 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not mean >>>>>>>>>> what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that "DDD >>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it does not. >>>>>>>>>> DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words when DDD is defined to have a pathological relationship >>>>>>>>> to HHH we can just close our eyes and ignore it and pretend that it >>>>>>>>> doesn't exist? >>>>>>>> It doesn't change anything about DDD. HHH was supposed to decide anything >>>>>>>> and can't fulfill that promise. That doesn't mean that DDD is somehow >>>>>>>> faulty, it's just a counterexample. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *HHH is required to report on the behavior of DDD* >>>>>>> Anyone that does not understand that HHH meets this criteria >>>>>>> has insufficient understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> But it doesn't, as a correct simulation of a DDD that calls an HHH that >>>>>> returns will stop running, >>>>> >>>>> I really think that you must be a liar here because >>>>> you have known this for years: >>>>> >>>>> On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>  > ...In some formulations, there are specific states >>>>>  >    defined as "halting states" and the machine only >>>>>  >    halts if either the start state is a halt state... >>>>> >>>>>  > ...these and many other definitions all have >>>>>  >    equivalent computing prowess... >>>>> >>>>> Anyone that knows C knows that DDD correctly simulated >>>>> by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return" {halt state}. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But the problem is that you HHH ODESN'T correctly emulate the DDD it is >>>> given, because it aborts its emulation. >>>> >>> >> >> Every one can see that Olcott is trying to get way >> with ad-hominem instead of staying on topic. >> > > void DDD() > { > HHH(DDD); > return; > } > > Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely > *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In > none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach > its "return" instruction halt state. The ranges of "each HHH" and "every HHH" are not defined above so that does not really mean anything. -- Mikko