Path: ...!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: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:47:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 123 Message-ID: References: <3ee338aad3b49626722d917050e06afa1f6c46b9@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:48:00 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8"; logging-data="2067177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3BXrNnBFV/ySlYwyZo1cC" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:XDh3q1nsJ1ptwh+oqnhHg3GhniI= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <3ee338aad3b49626722d917050e06afa1f6c46b9@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7606 On 3/29/2025 4:14 AM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:45:58 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 3/28/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/28/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/28/2025 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/28/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I corrected your error dozens of times and you ignore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these corrections and mindlessly repeat your error like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you've been doing for the last three years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Projection, as always.  I'll add the above to the list. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > They can report *about* it, by deriving from the description. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > Nobody said otherwise. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > Not if the guess is always right. > >>>>>>>>>>> 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. > There is no notion of relevance here, even if you don't like it. A > computation is purely mechanical. This function is definitely computable, > you even gave an implementation! > >>>>>>> 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. > You seem to think the same string could specify many things. > >>>>> With that specifcation DEFINED as the behavior of the machine >>>>> described when it is actually run. >>>>> >>>> In other words the halting problem is defined to not be allowed to use >>>> computable functions and it is this screwball definition that prevents >>>> the halting function from being Turing computable. > wtf no. What functions are you talking about? The successive states (incl. > tape) of a TM are entirely computable. > >>> The Halting Problem DEFINES THE FUNCTION. >>> >> It defines that it must compute the mapping from the direct execution of >> a Turing Machine contradicting the fact that the direct execution of a >> TM cannot possibly be an input to a TM. > > Jesus, can't y'all shorten your replies a little, this is not a forum. > > The function does not define anything about how the "mapping" is done; Except that it must figure out something that the input finite string actually specifies. int sum(int x, int y) { return 5; } Is not computable function even for sum(2,3). > there need not be any recognisable derivation. The impossible halting > decider should only give the correct result, how it does so is irrelevant. > The mapping is *obviously* not from a TM in execution (whatever is that?) > but from its description (which is one-to-one). That's a really silly > strawman. The mapping must be *to* the direct execution, nothing easier > than that. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer