Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 10:26:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <103brna$1a3c8$6@dont-email.me>
References: <YpG1Q.1572310$4AM6.1293015@fx17.ams4>
 <ab53329d43e0587e58fe949b7a8f1dce83bb580f@i2pn2.org>
 <1027uhs$r7bj$2@dont-email.me>
 <6f1855be769b3afc319d871c0d451f381803ba5e@i2pn2.org>
 <1029hvm$1ah2f$1@dont-email.me> <102bhn6$1t2a1$1@dont-email.me>
 <102c462$20jl4$10@dont-email.me> <102e2p4$2iugr$1@dont-email.me>
 <102er47$2ohps$3@dont-email.me> <102gv1s$3cscf$1@dont-email.me>
 <102hgcp$3gqbm$3@dont-email.me> <102m36e$qohc$1@dont-email.me>
 <102mm8v$uef9$8@dont-email.me> <102ok6o$1gto6$1@dont-email.me>
 <102uj28$369b2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e91b630c3309a6776fbea87004d42cfc056925be@i2pn2.org>
 <102uo4d$37e9c$3@dont-email.me> <1030h24$3p4go$1@dont-email.me>
 <10343o8$4ms9$2@dont-email.me> <1035q0q$v9p7$1@dont-email.me>
 <1036kab$14sj8$4@dont-email.me> <1038d5j$dhql$1@dont-email.me>
 <1039avv$k7rv$2@dont-email.me> <103atot$13ku3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:26:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aba4fd94e23f35feda5a08373e14adce";
	logging-data="1379720"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+kvorJburNmebcHVw91Zyg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ufj48t9QqnQihhvEu6xjLSHQrDQ=
In-Reply-To: <103atot$13ku3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250623-2, 6/23/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/23/2025 1:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-22 16:28:47 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/22/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-21 15:49:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-20 16:54:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-18 16:05:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you respond to my question without answering it it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't see any proofs in your article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense is not a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After studying these things for 22 years I found that every
>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an 
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its 
>>>>>>>>>>>> partial
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider (PHD) returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification 
>>>>>>>>>>> of that
>>>>>>>>>>> test case.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot 
>>>>>>>>>> even be
>>>>>>>>>> constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.
>>>>>>>>> In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There has never been any HP proof that has
>>>>>>>> ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
>>>>>>>> analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
>>>>>>>> whatever value that this termination analyzer
>>>>>>>> determines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course a proof of the halting problem does not define anything
>>>>>>> for a termination alayzer. Termination anlyzers are not a relevant
>>>>>>> for any proof (or other discussion) about the halting problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simulating termination analyzer are equivalent to
>>>>>> a partial halt deciders.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they are they should be called "simulating partial halt deciders".
>>>>
>>>> That is too confusing for most of my reviewers.
>>>
>>> It is long but there is no evdence that it would be confusing. Those
>>
>> Most reviewers here don't even understand that halting
>> is only defined as reaching a final halt state.
> 
> It seems that you can't understand what others write as a response.
> You never show any signs of understanding.
> 
> If others don't understand your writing as intended then your writing
> is not clear enough. People who do not understand some detail often
> ask for clarifications but you never clarify what is asked.
> 

I stop at their first counter-factual mistake because
people here have a very hard time fully addressing one
single point.

They keep flitting back and forth over many different
points to permanently avoid fully addressing one single
point.

*I Don't Think So, Homie Don't Play Dat*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6EsNyIRG-g

> It seems that you don't know whether others understand and therefore
> that your claims that someone doesn't understand are not based on
> facts.
> 

Every time anyone makes a provably counter-factual
statement it is certain that they are not understanding.

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