1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: That the input to HHH(DD) specifies non-halting behavior --- IS A V

    From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Aug 26 21:52:18 2025
    On 26/08/2025 21:23, olcott wrote:
    On 8/26/2025 2:57 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/26/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 26/08/2025 20:00, olcott wrote:
    On 8/26/2025 12:49 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

    <snip>


    You have already established that HHH returns 0


    to claim that DDD never halts.

    Liar

    I'm sorry? Are you now saying DDD halts?


    He's referring to his weasel-word phrase "DD emulated by HHH
    according to the semantics of the x86 language".


    The ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the ACTUAL INPUT to HHH(DD)
    specifies the non-halting behavior of never reaching
    its own halt state as measured by DD correctly simulated
    by any HHH.

    So you called me a liar...why, exactly?

    If we don't measure the The ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the
    ACTUAL INPUT to HHH(DD) this way then we stupidly
    ignore the verified fact that DD DOES CALL HHH(DD)
    in RECURSIVE SIMULATION.

    HHH must report. If you stupidly ignore that, you stupidly don't
    stop to think next.

    I honestly don't see how dozens of people in the
    last three years could honestly ignore the fact
    that DD does call HHH(DD) in recursive simulation
    and this does change the behavior of DD.

    DD's halting behaviour depends entirely on what HHH returns. Only
    an idiot can't see that.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Aug 26 22:25:36 2025
    On 26/08/2025 22:14, olcott wrote:
    On 8/26/2025 3:52 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 26/08/2025 21:23, olcott wrote:

    <snip>

    I honestly don't see how dozens of people in the
    last three years could honestly ignore the fact
    that DD does call HHH(DD) in recursive simulation
    and this does change the behavior of DD.

    DD's halting behaviour depends entirely on what HHH returns.
    Only an idiot can't see that.


    As I have said hundreds of times now it never
    has been any of the f-cking business of any
    Turing machine based halt decider whether M
    halts on input P.

    I've left that in because it's so illustrative of how warped your
    thinking is. I won't bother to gainsay it because you never
    bloody listen.

    All the textbooks get this WRONG.

    I doubt that very much. They're not the kind of textbook I kind
    to buy, you understand, so I don't know from personal experience,
    but I suspect that evolution will bring to the fore authors who
    know their stuff. Still! Think what you like.

    It has all been about the behavior specified by
    the input ⟨M⟩, P to to H THAT IS CHANGED WHEN
    M calls H in recursive simulation.

    Who cares?

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)