Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning
 instead of rhetoric -- RP
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 16:54:01 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 163
Message-ID: <1002vt8$2mbr6$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvtf7n$17c1i$5@dont-email.me> <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvudut$1ife1$1@dont-email.me> <vvuii0$1j0qo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvuk0d$1j6s0$5@dont-email.me> <vvvbtd$1ov7e$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvvpia$1tcfq$1@dont-email.me> <vvvqd1$1tgam$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvvrhl$1so2t$2@dont-email.me> <vvvtki$1tgam$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvvud5$1so2t$3@dont-email.me> <1000ce4$21dtc$3@dont-email.me>
 <1000q52$24gr3$2@dont-email.me> <1000qss$24jh0$2@dont-email.me>
 <1000rfv$24gr3$6@dont-email.me> <1000s0e$24sr2$1@dont-email.me>
 <1000s6d$24gr3$8@dont-email.me> <1000t1a$24sr2$4@dont-email.me>
 <1000t8e$24gr3$11@dont-email.me> <1000vs5$29e7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <100101g$24gr3$14@dont-email.me> <10011b6$29e7u$4@dont-email.me>
 <10012le$24gr3$17@dont-email.me> <1001370$2a1j4$1@dont-email.me>
 <10013q1$24gr3$20@dont-email.me> <10016i2$2aias$2@dont-email.me>
 <1001t7e$2f9oj$1@dont-email.me> <1002e7b$2i4bk$16@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 22:54:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="794812149fd3df87a1483ec84874242e";
	logging-data="2830182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Tse1QL5lOO5JVIePdzv/g"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i3BpRIEILhU4Q0zfeJ2OrZhNMGI=
In-Reply-To: <1002e7b$2i4bk$16@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8991

On 5/14/2025 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 6:02 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 14.mei.2025 om 06:35 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/13/2025 10:48 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2025 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2025 10:28 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:44 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.  Russell's Paradox was derived from the base 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms of naive set theory, proving the whole system was 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast, there is nothing in existing computation 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory that requires that a halt decider exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you made no attempt to refute the above statement. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you can show from the axioms of computation theory 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the following requirements can be met, your argument 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no basis:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes the following mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the same reason that the set of all sets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that do not contain themselves does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *As defined both were simply wrong-headed ideas*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong-headed about wanting to know if 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed directly. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes there is. I have proven this countless times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That requirements are impossible to satisfy doesn't make 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them wrong. It just makes them impossible to satisfy, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It did with Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC rejected the whole foundation upon which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RP was built.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC did not solve some other Russell's Paradox
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it rejected the whole idea of RP as nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you can show from the axioms of computation theory 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the following requirements can be met, your argument 
>>>>>>>>>>>> has no basis:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alternatively I can do what ZFC did and over-rule
>>>>>>>>>>> the whole foundation upon which the HP proofs are build.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You mean the assumption that the following requirements (which 
>>>>>>>>>> are *not* part of the axioms of computation theory) can be 
>>>>>>>>>> satisfied? The assumption that Linz and other proved was false 
>>>>>>>>>> and that you *explicitly* agreed with?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The conventional halting problem proofs have your
>>>>>>>>> requirements as its foundation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They have the *assumption* that the requirements can be met, and 
>>>>>>>> via proof by contradiction show the assumption to be false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the fact that the requirements can't be met is fine, just 
>>>>>>>> like the the fact that these requirements can't be met is fine:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A mythic number is a number N such that N > 5 and N < 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can also say that no computation can compute
>>>>>>> the square root of a dead rabbit. In none of these
>>>>>>> cases is computation actually limited.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could equally say that no whale can give
>>>>>>> birth to a pigeon. This places no actual limit
>>>>>>> on the behavior of whales. Whales were never
>>>>>>> meant to give birth to pigeons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as was said before:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/5/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>  > On 5/5/2025 4:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>  >> Strawman.  The square root of a dead rabbit does not exist, 
>>>>>> but the
>>>>>>  >> question of whether any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y 
>>>>>> halts when
>>>>>>  >> executed directly has a correct answer in all cases.
>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > It has a correct answer that cannot ever be computed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This qualifies as both a non-rebuttal and your confirmation you 
>>>>>> agree that Linz and others are correct that no algorithm exists 
>>>>>> that satisfies the below requirements:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
>>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes 
>>>>>> the following mapping:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true that a TM either halts or does not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> None-the-less the above requirements simply ignore
>>>>> that some inputs specify behavior that differs
>>>>> from the behavior of their direct execution.
>>>>
>>>> What you think the input specifies is irrelevant. 
>>>
>>> What it actually specifies rules the computation.
>>>
>> And the input includes the code to abort, so that should be included 
>> in the computation of the mapping. If it doesn't use the full 
>> specification, the mapping is incorrect
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>      would never stop running unless aborted then
> 

And *yet again* you lie by implying Sipser agrees with your 
interpretation of the above when definitive proof has been repeatedly 
provided that he did not:

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.


Your dishonesty knows no bounds.