Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:19:09 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:19:09 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2228780"; 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: 4718 Lines: 65 Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:38:22 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior of the direct >>>>>>>>>>> execution of another TM. I proved this many times in may ways. >>>>>>>>>>> Ignoring these proofs IT NOT ANY FORM OF REBUTTAL. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure they can. >>>>>>>>>> WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles is is >>>>>>>>>> based on? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input and >>>>>>>>> Turing computable functions only compute the mapping from inputs >>>>>>>>> to outputs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to *its* >>>>>>>> output, it cannot be wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping. >>>>>> >>>>>> False.  The only requirement is to map a member of the input domain >>>>>> to a member of the output domain as per the requirements. >>>>>> If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed.  It doesn't >>>>>> matter how it's done. >>>>>> >>>>> Unless an input is transformed into an output on the basis of a >>>>> syntactic or semantic property of this input it is not a Turing >>>>> computable function. >>>>> int StringLength(char *S) >>>>> { >>>>>    return 5; >>>>> } >>>>> Does not compute the string length of any string. >>>>> >>>> False.  It computes the length of all strings of length 5. >>> >>> It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an algorithm that derive >>> an output on the basis of an input) jack shit it makes a guess. Even a constant function is a "computation", even if it doesn't actually do any work. >> Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings that have >> a length of 5, it meets the requirement. > > The actual requirement is to compute the mapping from a finite string to > its length using a sequence of algorithmic steps. > Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a finite string of > machine code to the behavior that this finite string specifies. Do you reckon the direct execution of a TM contradicts the specification? -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.