Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:01:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <da8a6b1e9be577b8dce5dd042ce4e7aa65376e85@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vro0hk$1c9ia$1@dont-email.me>
	<9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@i2pn2.org>
	<vrpfua$2qbhf$2@dont-email.me>
	<211f9a2a284cb2deaa666f424c1ef826fe855e80@i2pn2.org>
	<vrq330$3dq3n$1@dont-email.me>
	<e7268e8ef47579cacb49b0533d51549a77eb0b96@i2pn2.org>
	<vrqb6f$3k9kh$2@dont-email.me>
	<3f250e699762cfe6fccc844f10eb04f32d470b6a@i2pn2.org>
	<vrrpcl$11a56$4@dont-email.me>
	<8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
	<vrt3gv$264jb$4@dont-email.me>
	<448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org>
	<vru5tp$38ob9$1@dont-email.me>
	<ac61f679d7ddb39b0ceaedd7f562899d36346535@i2pn2.org>
	<vrvccp$aq8m$3@dont-email.me>
	<e166831a8e02332d64ec151f61481e2629e6e53a@i2pn2.org>
	<vrvsh4$p4vd$2@dont-email.me>
	<c93030bbd81fb313c76c256c6e54beb48b07dfdd@i2pn2.org>
	<vs1vuv$2ot1m$1@dont-email.me>
	<d2f86fad6c5823e3c098f30d331576c52263b398@i2pn2.org>
	<vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me> <vs2u3v$3mcjm$2@dont-email.me>
	<vs434l$mmcb$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:01:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1960035"; 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: 3889
Lines: 41

Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:50:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final staste even if
>>>> an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do that,
>>>> it isn't showing non-halting.
>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state in an
>>> unbounded number of steps.
>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 reaches its final state in a finite number of
>>> steps.
>> It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator reports that it
>> is unable to reach the end of the simulation of a program that halts in
>> direct execution.
> That IS NOT what HHH is reporting.
That is exactly what it does, and you have said so before(tm).

> HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot
> possibly reach its own final halt state.
DDD doesn't *do* anything, it is being simulated. HHH can't reach
DDD's existing halt state.

>> It is interesting to know:
>> 'Is there an algorithm that can determine for all possible inputs
>> whether the input specifies a program that [...]
>> halts when directly executed?'
>> This question seems undecidable for Olcott.
> It is the halts while directly executed that is impossible for all
> inputs. No TM can ever report on the behavior of the direct execution of
> any other TM.
The direct execution of a TM is obviously computable from its description.

> A TM can only report on the behavior that the machine code of another TM
> specifies. When it specifies a pathological relationship then the
> behavior caused by the pathological relationship MUST BE REPORTED.
No, the machine code doesn't "specify a pathological relationship", that
is purely a feature of trying to simulate it with the included simulator.

-- 
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.