Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:14:43 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:14:44 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f64513aa3f157d417bd9d336ffe725cf"; logging-data="1945731"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19xpdIvaLAs3QSKWJn1hW6e" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:VGp30yChN39XLtuts1+FU2z113c= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4666 On 7/17/2024 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-07-16 14:46:40 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 7/16/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-07-15 13:32:27 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 7/15/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-07-14 14:48:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>> When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance >>>>>> then your disagreement has no actual basis. >>>>>> >>>>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to* >>>>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect* >>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non >>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting >>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing >>>>>> with arithmetic. >>>>> >>>>> A lame analogy. A better one is: 2 + 3 = 5 is a proven theorem just >>>>> like the uncomputability of halting is. >>>> >>>> The uncomputability of halting is only proven when the problem >>>> is framed this way: HHH is required to report on the behavior >>>> of an input that was defined to do exactly the opposite of >>>> whatever DDD reports. >>> >>> No, it is proven about the halting problem as that problem is. >> >> Which is simply a logical impossibility > > Yes, a halting decider is a logical impossibility, as can be and has > been proven. > If it is a logical impossibility then it places no actual limit on computation otherwise we would have "the CAD problem" of the logical impossibility of making a CAD system that correctly draws a square circle. "The halting problem" does have some practical applications in that is can be used to detect denial of service attacks. My system does work correctly for that. >> thus no actual limit to computation more that this logical impossibility: >> What time is it (yes or no)? > > As construction of a halting decider is already known to be impossible > why would anyone care whether there is other limitations about it? > > And of course the impossibility of halting decider prevents any applicaions > of it, for example as a tool to solve other problems. > Only because we have framed the problem as a logical impossibility. When we re-frame the problem so that it is not a logical impossibility then the practical applications can still be derived. >> *This is isomorphic the HP decider/input pair* >> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? >> (Hehner:2018:2) > > Perhaps you can use the isomorphism to proove that Carol can't. > But that should be faily easy anyway. > Carol's question is isomorphic to the halting problem decider/input pair showing that the halting problem is simply a cheap trick. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer