Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:57:41 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: <9f2ff3ab9b99a7bb6dfa0885f9757f810ce52e66@i2pn2.org> <8a3e7e93e6cad20b29d23405a0e6dbd497a492ac@i2pn2.org> <26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org> <36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@i2pn2.org> <72d003704b5bacf77110750e8c973d62869ad204@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 04:57:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5ed314de766e2c5f0206a803d6d07134"; logging-data="1974624"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8ETXzO5TiGyfBgTU5+DXJ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:pXPyfmmOn9p6gGcY/hI29X7r6B4= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250331-6, 3/31/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 3970 On 3/31/2025 9:48 PM, dbush wrote: > On 3/31/2025 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> HHH must report on the behavior that its input >> actually specifies. > > And the input specifies an algorithm that halts when executed directly. > Which is NOT how it is executed. It IS executed with recursive emulation. >> This seems way too difficult >> for people that can only spout off words that >> they learned by rote, with no actual understanding >> of the underlying principles involved. >> >> Every actual computation can only transform input >> finite strings into outputs. HHH does do this. > > But not as per the requirements: > > > Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X > described as with input Y: > > A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the > following mapping: > > (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly > (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly > > >> >> The "requirements" that you mindlessly spout off > > Which would make all true statements provable if they could be met. > >> violate this foundational principle of functions >> computed by Turing machines. > > Which just says that no Turing machine satisfies those requirements, as > Linz and others proved. > >> >> int sum(int x, int y) >> { >>    return 5; >> } >> >> sum(2,3) does not compute the sum of 2 + 3. >> > > > It absolutely does.  There are *NO* requirements on the implementation, > only the result. Unless and algorithm transforms its inputs into its outputs it is not a Turing computable function. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer