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: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:46:40 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:46:40 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="37be9b12bf7e2996d459c5c7ef9a1f9b"; logging-data="1363189"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UifCKeyVfia5HZMj356NN" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vdlfSx24roAVlW6JWZB3lTMZvL0= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4933 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 thus no actual limit to computation more that this logical impossibility: What time is it (yes or no)? *This is isomorphic the HP decider/input pair* Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? (Hehner:2018:2) Giving credit where credit is due Richard corrected a loophole in the original question. > The program that predicts what HHH would say and does the opposite > is just one eample of a program. > It is just like a Liar Paradox input to a True(L, x) predicate. The correct answer is INVALID INPUT. >> When HHH is defined such that an input that was defined to >> do the opposite of whatever HHH reports can never reach this >> point in its execution trace then the prior halting problem >> proof has been defeated. > From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an interpreter to a program text that includes a call to that same interpreter with that same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting program has some of the same character as an interpreter: it applies to texts through abstract interpretation. Unsurprisingly, if we apply a halting program to a program text that includes a call to that same halting program with that same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop. (Hehner:2011:15) [5] E C R Hehner. Problems with the Halting Problem, COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013 https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf > No, not anymore that 2 + 3 = 5 is defeated by a 2 that is defined to > shrink to 1 if 3 is added to it. > *Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer