Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:16:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <vqj4mf$ikc5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me> <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me> <vqii32$bcd0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqijht$bcso$3@dont-email.me> <vqik16$bcd0$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqine6$cton$1@dont-email.me> <vqiovv$d4j1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqiqk0$dc6s$2@dont-email.me> <vqirn6$dje3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqiug9$duqq$1@dont-email.me> <vqiur3$dje3$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqj2ab$dje3$8@dont-email.me> <vqj2pn$ef0h$7@dont-email.me>
 <vqj342$dje3$10@dont-email.me> <vqj3bc$ef0h$9@dont-email.me>
 <vqj3n1$dje3$12@dont-email.me> <vqj460$il72$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 05:16:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f";
	logging-data="610693"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rsXW6J34g2kaFnndZuj4U"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VjeV3RDo5rE/hIKlG7e8185/FhU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqj460$il72$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5176

On 3/8/2025 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have no 
>>>>>> real rebuttal for what others have said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>>>>>
>>>>>   <copy-paste response>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you have no rebuttal. 
>>>
>>> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>>>
>>> *UNTIL YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND*
>>> *THE NEXT STEP THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES*
>>>
>>> <copy-paste response>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't matter, as you've already accepted that your HHH isn't a 
>> solution to the halting problem 
> 
> *I never said that*

Yes you did, by making no attempt to explain otherwise:

On 3/8/2025 10:49 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 3/8/2025 9:36 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>> The halting problem requires that the halting function is mapped:
 >>>>
 >>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
 >>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
directly
 >>>>
 >>>> So by this specification, (<X>,Y) specifies the behavior of X(Y)
 >>>> when executed directly.
 >>>>
 >>>> Any algorithm that does not compute this mapping is not a solution
 >>>> to the halting problem.
 >>>
 >>> Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have no real
 >>> rebuttal for what others have said.
 >>>
 >>
 >> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
 >>
 >>   <copy-paste response>
 >>
 >
 >
 > In other words, you have no rebuttal.  A copy-paste response is worse
 > than no rebuttal at all.
 >
 >>> Unless you respond to this thread, I'll take your lack of response
 >>> to mean that you accept that the above specification is required to
 >>> be a solution to the halting problem.
 >
 > And as such, by the above, your less-than-a-rebuttal means you accept
 > that a solution to the halting problem is required to perform the
 > following mapping:
 >
 > (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
 > (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
directly
 >


> I said that fully understanding my first
> step is required to understand any other
> aspects such as the details of application
> to the halting problem.

There *is* no application if it doesn't meet the requirements.

> 
> You insist on me teaching you algebra
> before you learn arithmetic.

No, you insist on agreeing on an answer before agreeing on a question.

You're basically insisting that we agree that there's a black cat in 
your kitchen when we want to know if there's a white dog in your living 
room.

It doesn't matter what your HHH is mapping if it doesn't meet the 
requirements to be a solution to the halting problem.