XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 17/12/2025 16:06, olcott wrote:   
   > On 12/17/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 15/12/2025 16:05, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 12/15/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> On 15/12/2025 02:39, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/14/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/14/25 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/14/2025 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/14/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/14/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 13/12/2025 23:32, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> All of the textbooks require halt deciders to   
   >>>>>>>>>>> report on the behavior of machine M on input w.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> This may be easy to understand yet not precisely   
   >>>>>>>>>>> accurate.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> That is precisely accurate. The problem is exactly what the   
   >>>>>>>>>> problem   
   >>>>>>>>>> statement says. You may define your problem differently but then   
   >>>>>>>>>> you just have another problem. The halting problem still is what   
   >>>>>>>>>> it was.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> All the textbooks simply ignore that no Turing   
   >>>>>>>>> machine can possibly compute the mapping from   
   >>>>>>>>> the behavior from another actual Turing machine.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Sure it can, from the representation of it.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Just like it can add two numbers by using representatins.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> They can only compute the mapping from a finite   
   >>>>>>>>> string input that is a mere proxy for this behavior.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> And the proxy represents that same behavior, so it must get the   
   >>>>>>>> same result.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> As I have conclusively proved many thousands of   
   >>>>>>> times that the behavior of DD AS AN ACTUAL INPUT   
   >>>>>>> to HHH does SPECIFY non-halting behavior.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No you haven't,   
   >>>>> I say that I have proven this   
   >>>>> DD AS AN INPUT TO HHH(DD)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You keep repeating that the meaning of DD as imput ot HHH is different   
   >>>> from the meaning of DD per se. But you never say what that different   
   >>>> meaning is.   
   >>>   
   >>> Or I do say it 500 times and you never notice.   
   >>   
   >> You are right, i have never noticed a pointer to any of those 500.   
   >>   
   >>> DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C   
   >>> cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement   
   >>> final halt state.   
   >>   
   >> And you still don't say.   
   >   
   > (a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values   
   > using finite string transformation rules.   
   >   
   > (b) There exists no alternative more definitive measure   
   > of the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies (within   
   > finite string transformation rules) than P simulated by H.   
      
   Nothing new there.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)