Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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 09:27:32 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <37b71ccbdef6d263119ed4eedb4ae3cbb6b0bf82@i2pn2.org> References: <448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:27:32 -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: 4414 Lines: 56 Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:38:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 3/28/2025 2:20 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 3/28/2025 3:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/28/2025 4:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 02:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> I did not say that no TM can ever report on behavior that matches >>>>> the behavior of a directly executing TM. Why can't HHH do it? Explain what pathology is and what it does. >>>>> No TM can every directly see the behavior of the direct execution of >>>>> any other TM because no TM can take a directly executing TM as an >>>>> input. Ridiculous strawman, nobody said that. Are you saying that nothing at all can be computed about TMs? >>>> So we agree that the answer for: >>>> 'Is there an algorithm that can determine for all possible inputs >>>> whether the input specifies a program that (according to the >>>> semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed?' >>>> is 'no'. Correct? >>> >>> In the same way: Is there an algorithm that correctly determines the >>> square root of a box of rocks? Can you just say yes or no for once? >> In other words, you're saying that there's a TM/input where the >> question of whether or not it halts when executed directly has no >> correct yes or no answer. >> Show it. >> > I proved it many times and because you are a Troll you ignored the proof > that by definition no TM can take an executing TM as its input, thus > cannot possibly report on something that it does not see. Where is the proof that some TM has no definite halting status? >> Failure to do so in your next message is your on-the-record admission >> that the above question is valid. > > When include ALL of the relevant details to the question it becomes: > What Boolean value can decider H correctly return when input D is able > to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns? And the answer is none, ergo the assumption that an H exists is wrong. > We can reject this question entirely when we discard its false > assumption. D is unable to do the opposite of whatever value that H > returns when H is a simulating halt decider. Oh. That's a rather unorthodox resolution. How do you show that D is impossible. -- 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.