XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   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.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)