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

On 3/29/25 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/29/2025 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 1:37 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/29/2025 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 4:31 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:27:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/28/2025 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/28/2025 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/28/2025 1:12 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/28/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

>

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.

According to what? WE require it. YOU are answering a different question.
>

Category error.
I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt
when executed directly.

>
It is 100% impossible for any TM to take another executing TM as its
input.

Quit that.
>

But it can take a complete description of a TM that

>
Is not always a perfect proxy for the behavior of the direct execution
of the underlying machine.

>

Uh yes it is.
>

>
That my proof that I am correct
is over your head is less than
no rebuttal what-so-ever.

>
The fact that such TM description can be given to a UTM which will exactly replicate the behavior of the described TM when executed directly proves otherwise is apparently over your head.
>

>
One cannot correctly ignore the effect that a specified
pathological relationship has between its simulator
and its input on the behavior of this input.
>

>
All it means is that HHH does not correctly map DDD to 1 as per the requirements:
>

 int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
In the same way that sum(2,3) cannot be mapped to 7.
 Computations apply a set of finite string transformation
rules to an input finite string to derive an output finite
string.

Right, and HHH transform the finite string of the DDD + HHH input to non-halting, which thus makes DDD halting, so HHH was wrong.

 The semantic property that input DDD specifies to HHH
is non-halting.
 

No, the semantic propery that the input DDD specifies to ANYONE is Halting, as DDD will halt. PERIOD (since HHH has been defined to return non-halting)
The semantics of an input to a halt decider is, and only is, the program the input describes, and whether it will halt when it is run.
Sorry, you are just showing you are trying to us a strawman, since your brain is just full of straw.