Path: 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 13:54:22 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:54:23 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8"; logging-data="2067177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TzzHnJBssEnun4nDme8qe" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:sTrqo6cZ/cmldxNt84Fk+gDFQ5o= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US On 3/29/2025 4:19 AM, joes wrote: > 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. > That is not transforming an input finite string into its corresponding output finite string. Historically this is a decider: void X(char* S) { return; } It "accepts" all finite string inputs. >>> 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? > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer