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

Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:45:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/28/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/28/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/28/2025 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/28/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote:

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.
>

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.

They can report *about* it, by deriving from the description.

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.

Nobody said otherwise.

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.

Not if the guess is always right.

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.

There is no notion of relevance here, even if you don't like it. A
computation is purely mechanical. This function is definitely computable,
you even gave an implementation!

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.

You seem to think the same string could specify many things.

With that specifcation DEFINED as the behavior of the machine
described when it is actually run.
>

In other words the halting problem is defined to not be allowed to use
computable functions and it is this screwball definition that prevents
the halting function from being Turing computable.

wtf no. What functions are you talking about? The successive states (incl.
tape) of a TM are entirely computable.

The Halting Problem DEFINES THE FUNCTION.
 

It defines that it must compute the mapping from the direct execution of
a Turing Machine contradicting the fact that the direct execution of a
TM cannot possibly be an input to a TM.

Jesus, can't y'all shorten your replies a little, this is not a forum.

The function does not define anything about how the "mapping" is done;
there need not be any recognisable derivation. The impossible halting
decider should only give the correct result, how it does so is irrelevant.
The mapping is *obviously* not from a TM in execution (whatever is that?)
but from its description (which is one-to-one). That's a really silly
strawman. The mapping must be *to* the direct execution, nothing easier
than that.

--
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.