Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1

On 3/28/25 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/28/2025 1:07 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:57:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/27/2025 9:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 8:24 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

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:

On 3/27/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

>

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.
HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly emulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own final halt state.

>
In other words, HHH is not a halt decider because it is not
computing the required mapping:

>

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.

>

I did not say that no TM can ever report on behavior that matches
the behavior of a directly executing TM.

>
Good, because that's all that's required for a solution to the
halting problem:
>

There are sometimes when the behavior of TM Description D correctly
simulated by UTM1 does not match the behavior correctly simulated by
UTM2.

>
Irrelevant, because to satisfy the requirements, the behavior of the
described machine when executed directly must be reported.

>
I HAVE PROVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS WRONG NITWIT.
A FUNCTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE SQUARE OF A BOX OF ROCKS IS
ALSO INCORRECT.

 

It is wrong to ask for the behaviour of the direct execution? Anyways,
HHH can't do it.
>

 Unless and until one TM can take another executing
TM as an input IT IS WRONG TO REQUIRE A TM TO REPORT
ON SOMETHING THAT IT CANNOT SEE.
 

So, you don't think that UTMs exist?
I guess Olcott-Computation is a pretty worthless field of endever.
Of course a TM can take the representation of another TM and from that has its behavior defined for it.
Your problem is you don't understand the being given the actual definition of a Turing Machine (with its input) means that we have been given everything need to define (if not know) the behavior of that machine when run. Not being able to "See" what has been defined to you, is what makes the problem impossible to solve, and thus the mappiing non-computable.