Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved
 criteria is met
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:21:20 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5mnu0$1d3t3$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
	<v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
	<v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
	<v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
	<v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me>
	<v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
	<v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v5el8c$24l4$4@news.muc.de> <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me>
	<v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org> <v5fuf7$1up2o$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5gk7m$22b20$1@dont-email.me> <v5h3aj$24jbd$5@dont-email.me>
	<v5j4p0$2ksq3$1@dont-email.me> <v5jrrq$2o58l$4@dont-email.me>
	<v5k0ru$2q29e$1@dont-email.me> <v5k5ko$2qsdr$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5k79o$19nfi$1@i2pn2.org> <v5k824$2qsdr$6@dont-email.me>
	<v5lvhu$39e8b$1@dont-email.me> <v5mkdb$3cibm$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:21:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1478563"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3985
Lines: 45

Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:21:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/28/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-27 17:38:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 6/27/2024 12:25 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:56:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>> You are wrong. The input is the variable in the question. The question
>> is not a part of the input.
> The input is the machine address of the finite string of x86 machine
> code.
And in that input there is no question about whether itself halts.
That is in the programming of the analyser.

>>> The input is a specific finite string of bytes that has the semantics
>>> of the x86 programming language.
>> For a decider that is made for that sort of input. But there cannot be
>> any question in that input.
> The question is:
> Does this finite string of machine code specify behavior that terminates
> normally?
And the question is not: Do I, the analyser, give the correct answer?
It has no power to declare itself the authority.

>>>>> None-the-less no-one here understands that every halt decider is
>>>>> only required to report on the behavior that its actual input
>>>>> actually maps to.
What do you even mean? Of course it follows its programming and does not
spontaneously generate an answer. It may not be possible to write such
a program: then there is indeed no machine that can compute it, but the
input still has a defined halting status


>>>>> Instead everyone here expects that the halt decider must map to the
>>>>> English description of what the authors of textbooks expect it to
>>>>> map to.
>>>> That is the definition of a halt decider. If it does not fit that
>>>> definition, it is not one.
>>> Some definitions ARE incorrect.
>> That definition is not incorrect.

> When I define Snitfinbangflizzledroop as the square-root of
> misconceptions about the US constitution my definition is incorrect
> because there is no mapping from the input of misconceptions about the
> US constitution to any square-root value.
There is an obvious mapping from D to its behaviour: run it, or give it
to any simulator /that it does not call/.