Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:43:05 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <1042req$a6mb$2@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me>
 <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me>
 <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me>
 <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me>
 <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me> <10399dl$jvs0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1039lft$n1od$3@dont-email.me> <103b30q$14nvb$1@dont-email.me>
 <103bpj3$1a3c8$2@dont-email.me> <103dljq$1sp55$1@dont-email.me>
 <103ebck$22250$2@dont-email.me> <103ga9l$2l4he$1@dont-email.me>
 <103gvur$2q86f$2@dont-email.me> <103j359$3bke5$1@dont-email.me>
 <103n9i8$e9sp$2@dont-email.me> <103oad3$oscg$2@dont-email.me>
 <103op4b$rq7e$4@dont-email.me> <103r53b$2due$2@dont-email.me>
 <103rg3o$1hc53$5@dont-email.me> <103tf1v$4j97$2@dont-email.me>
 <103ug9q$292c0$4@dont-email.me> <1040947$7a12$3@dont-email.me>
 <1040l6t$2rk1l$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:43:07 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="94c83e0600917e76556ff17dba76f9bb";
	logging-data="334539"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19EeblbmwLAoSy8T958S/jD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZZ6QFqxp5JFV0cYNXpbfjLe+9rw=
In-Reply-To: <1040l6t$2rk1l$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 01.jul.2025 om 14:44 schreef olcott:
> On 7/1/2025 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 30.jun.2025 om 19:08 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/30/2025 2:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 29.jun.2025 om 15:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/29/2025 5:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 28.jun.2025 om 15:02 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/28/2025 3:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 28.jun.2025 om 01:30 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2025 4:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.jun.2025 om 16:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 24.jun.2025 om 16:06 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> None of the code in HHH can possibly cause DDD correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH to reach its own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, exactly, that is the bug.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Recursive emulation is only a tiny bit more complicated
>>>>>>>>> than recursion yet no one here seems to have a clue.
>>>>>>>>> Do you know what recursion is?
>>>>>>>>> (If you don't that would explain a lot)
>>>>>>>> As usual irrelevant claims without evidence. No rebuttal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah so you don't know what recursion is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual a false claim without evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH has a bug that makes that it does not recognise the halting 
>>>>>>>> behaviour of the program specified in the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't even know what recursion is then
>>>>>>> you are totally unqualified to review these things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And since the condition in the 'if' fails, the conclusion is not 
>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even a beginner can see that the input is a pointer to code, 
>>>>>>>> including the code to abort and halt. But HHH is programmed to 
>>>>>>>> ignore the conditional branch instructions, when simulating 
>>>>>>>> itself, so it thinks that there is an infinite loop when there 
>>>>>>>> are only a finite number of recursions.
>>>>>>>> But Olcott does not understand that not all recursions are 
>>>>>>>> infinite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the measure is whether or not DDD correctly
>>>>>>> simulated by HHH can possibly reach its own "return"
>>>>>>> instruction final halt state nothing inside HHH can
>>>>>>> possibly have any effect on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you don't know this proves that you are unqualified
>>>>>>> to review my work.
>>>>>> The failure of HHH is an incorrect measure for the halting 
>>>>>> behaviour specified in the input.
>>>>>> That you do not understand this explains your invalid claims.
>>>>>> The halting behaviour of the input can be analysed by several 
>>>>>> other methods and they show that HHH is incorrect in its analysis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No Turing machine can ever report on the behavior of
>>>>> any directly executing Turing Machine because no TM
>>>>> can ever take another directly executing Turing Machine
>>>>> as its input.
>>>> There is no need to report about another Turing Machine.
>>>
>>> The conventional halting problem proof incorrectly requires this.
>>>
>>
>>
>> As usual repeated claims without evidence.
>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    DDD();
>>> }
>>>
>>> When the input to HHH(DDD) is correctly simulated
>>> by HHH then HHH correctly rejects this input as
>>> specifying non-halting behavior.
>>
>> No, it *incorrectly* does that. The input is DDD calling an aborting 
>> HHH, so the input specifies a halting program.
>>
> 
> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "return" instruction final halt state
> that DOES NOT HALT TO MATTER WHAT THE F YOU CALL IT.
> 
As usual claims without evidence. (Shouting is no evidence.)
The input for HHH has code to abort and halt, so this input specifies a 
halting program.
If HHH fails to reach that final halt state, that does not change the 
specification.
The input specifies a halting program, no matter what HHH can see of it.