Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do computations actually work?
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 10:40:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 155
Message-ID: <1014mdi$2lsi8$8@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me>
 <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>
 <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <100onkd$3t5cb$1@dont-email.me>
 <100p6vj$3vlgq$1@dont-email.me> <100q6b1$5buc$2@dont-email.me>
 <100rtvq$ji9l$1@dont-email.me> <100sod2$p071$6@dont-email.me>
 <100umo8$1a058$1@dont-email.me> <100vaoj$1d5lg$9@dont-email.me>
 <100ve0m$1e53o$1@dont-email.me> <10125hp$22da5$18@dont-email.me>
 <1013t5k$2hgid$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 17:40:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b05b1d7fc1f90d5563d667325c66ff38";
	logging-data="2814536"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pnwFTEdC8rlYj6PAE9/VP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0Wdx6hlA9b4oolGtrmcjzHPE+sY=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250527-6, 5/27/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1013t5k$2hgid$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/27/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-05-26 16:40:25 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/25/2025 10:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 25.mei.2025 om 16:50 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/25/2025 4:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-05-24 15:25:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/24/2025 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-05-23 16:04:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-23 02:47:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2025 8:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2025 06:41, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2025 06:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2025 00:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing proved that what you're asking is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what he proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you'll be able to write a universal termination 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyser that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report for any program and any input whether it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts. Good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> luck with that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. But I'm just reflecting. He seemed to think 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that my inability to write the kind of program Turing 
>>>>>>>>>>>> envisaged (an inability that I readily concede) is evidence 
>>>>>>>>>>>> for his argument. Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce 
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the gander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if olcott had refuted the proofs of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insolvability of the Halting Problem -- or even if he had 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a universal halt decider is possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And we both know what we both think of that idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- that doesn't imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he or anyone else would be able to write one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've never been entirely clear on what olcott is claiming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nor I. Mike Terry seems to have a pretty good handle on it, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> but no matter how clearly he explains it to me my eyes glaze 
>>>>>>>>>>>> over and I start to snore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, it's the way I tell 'em!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's what the tabloids might have said about it, if it had 
>>>>>>>>>>> made the front pages when the story broke:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   COMPUTER BOFFIN IS TURING IN HIS GRAVE!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   An Internet crank claims to have refuted Linz HP proof by 
>>>>>>>>>>> creating a
>>>>>>>>>>>   Halt Decider that CORRECTLY decides its own "impossible 
>>>>>>>>>>> input"!
>>>>>>>>>>>   The computing world is underwhelmed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Better?  (Appologies for the headline, it's the best I could 
>>>>>>>>>>> come up with.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a key detail about ALL of these proofs
>>>>>>>>>> that no one has paid attention to for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is impossible to define *AN INPUT* to HHH that
>>>>>>>>>> does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a key detail about HHH. Your HHH is not a part of those 
>>>>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of the proofs work this same way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they don't. Some proofs derive the same conclusion with an 
>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>> different approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, in spite of the differences, they do share a common 
>>>>>>> fieature:
>>>>>>> your HHH is not a part of any of the proofs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the conventional proofs of the HP assume that
>>>>>> there is an *input D* that can actually do the opposite
>>>>>> of whatever value that HHH returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on what you mean by "conventional". If you merely mean proofs
>>>>> that apply ordinary logic then there are proofs with a different
>>>>> strategy. If you mean only proofs that use the same strategy that
>>>>> Turing used then you are closer to the truth. But there is no 
>>>>> assumption
>>>>> about the exstence of such D. Its existence is proven.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In seems that way until you pay much closer attention.
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    DDD(); // The HHH that DDD calls cannot report on the
>>>> }        // behavior of its caller because it cannot see
>>>>           // is caller.
>>>>
>>>> Even if HHH could see and report on the behavior of
>>>> its caller because its caller is not its input this
>>>> too is no good.
>>>
>>> It seems that way to you, until you pay somewhat closer attention.
>>
>> The HHH(DDD) must report on the behavior that its actual input
>> actually specified CANNOT BE VIOLATED.
> 
> Of course it can. In fact HHH does violate that. DDD specifies a halting
> behaviour but HHH reports that DDD specifies a non-halting behaviour.
> That is a violation of that rquirement.
> 

If DDD simulated by HHH stops running for any
reason besides reaching its own "ret" instruction
final halt state THEN DDD HAS NOT HALTED.

_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]

DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
simulated "ret" instruction final halt state because
this DDD calls its own simulator in recursive simulation.

Ever programmer that has ever heard of recursion should
have gotten this right away. That it is as simple as
recursion and almost no one here gets it leads me to
believe that these reviewers are dishonest.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer