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

Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:25:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/29/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:

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?

If HHH must report on the direct execution of DDD then it must see the
behavior of the direct execution of DDD and this is always impossible
for every pair of TMs.

It absolutely should see the direct execution and not blind itself. Do
you think that one cannot compute anything about a TM, even when given
the description?

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?

The inability to determine whether or not this sentence: "What time is
it?" is true or false is not any instance of undecidability.
The inability of any TM to report on the behavior of the direct
execution of any other TM is also not any instance of undecidability.

I meant the question whether you agree. Or was that an agreement?

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?

No TM can ever report on the behavior of any directly executed TM
because no TM has any access to this behavior.

Do you mean that one cannot simulate TMs?

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.

Likewise by the same reasoning we can prove that some questions have no
correct answer by allowing incorrect questions.

Why should that question be incorrect? It only mentions a decider, its
return value and another program built on it.

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?

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
The contradictory part is unreachable code to DD correctly emulated by
HHH.

You just wrote an "impossible" program. Hm, must not be a program.

--
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.