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

On 3/29/25 5:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 3:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 29.mrt.2025 om 20:03 schreef olcott:

On 3/29/2025 10:23 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/29/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/28/2025 11:00 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

>
It defines that it must compute the mapping from
the direct execution of a Turing Machine

>
Which does not require tracing an actual running TM, only mapping properties of the TM described.

>
The key fact that you continue to dishonestly ignore
is the concrete counter-example that I provided that
conclusively proves that the finite string of machine
code input is not always a valid proxy for the behavior
of the underlying virtual machine.

>
In other words, you deny the concept of a UTM, which can take a description of any Turing machine and exactly reproduce the behavior of the direct execution.

>
I deny that a pathological relationship between a UTM and
its input can be correctly ignored.
>
When this pathological relationship changes this behavior
we cannot simply pretend that the behavior is not changed.
>
>

>
When solving a problem, it is stupid to choose a tool that has a pathological relation with the problem.

 A termination analyzer cannot reject itself, yet it can
reject an input. This input was intentionally defined
to try to fool this termination analyzer.

But does so in an allowed way.,

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 On the other hand when this same input DD is simulated
by the termination analyzer that DD defined a pathological
relationship to IT DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
 

Nope, since UTM(DD) halts, DD is a halting input, DEFINTIONS.

Because of this the contradictory portion of its code
is unreachable thus cannot possible to the opposite of
whatever value that HHH returns.

But it IS reachable by the correct emulation by the UTM.
All you have shown is that HHH can't know what the right answer is, because all your version will give up before it determines it.
Your problem is that you can't change the definition of the behavior the input represents, as that was fixed by the problem statement, so unless you admit that you have lied by using a strawman, you are caught in the lie that you answer is objectively wrong.

 

If I want to repair a hammer, it is stupid to use this same hammer to fix it.
Similarly, to solve the question whether DDD halts, one can use direct execution, or a world-class simulator, or even HHH1, but it is stupid to choose a solver that has a pathological relation with this input, because it is guaranteed that it will give the wrong answer. (If it answers.)
>