Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 23:06:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 189
Message-ID: <104csp2$1r72a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me> <103r0ce$1esb9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103rhf6$1hc53$8@dont-email.me>
 <0c50a8ee4efb36cef4271674792a090125187f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <gPg8Q.1988877$4AM6.189428@fx17.ams4>
 <a60543ff9feb748df80b32970c67bb8c7ab13d89@i2pn2.org>
 <tJA8Q.6$r61e.2@fx11.ams4>
 <5e7f84c84b4ed51e195dd33afd9ed7eca89be454@i2pn2.org>
 <F9U8Q.300$ZQ4b.16@fx16.ams4> <1044r60$3v2k1$1@dont-email.me>
 <1045gll$37j5$1@dont-email.me> <1045uma$5p40$1@dont-email.me>
 <1048077$n883$1@dont-email.me> <1048imf$qd4f$3@dont-email.me>
 <68af1e9afd035b838ea3b13ef4bb2c9eabffc3d4@i2pn2.org>
 <1048p9r$sb89$1@dont-email.me>
 <e972561b628a9c0c05d6409ce2614d15a8f89d14@i2pn2.org>
 <10496b4$v1s9$2@dont-email.me>
 <0d70791e42b96be5cdf7d19707944996cc1c5a59@i2pn2.org>
 <1049ka6$12849$1@dont-email.me>
 <9268ab163889f92e158caca294e9b8bb8373311c@i2pn2.org>
 <104bjee$1hqln$14@dont-email.me>
 <2e2fd03d2a3cf0d1979fc726498c27cca2114860@i2pn2.org>
 <104cmn1$1qmeg$1@dont-email.me>
 <1f47fb325c86e74d9ba70091635be26a0c4f9bff@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2025 06:07:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1d15e621694ba385b5c4999100d2724d";
	logging-data="1940554"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zcbiyts6GkCkEDobcYeGT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J/K4PAdXJMRUJ8sqEgALRbmH0UU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1f47fb325c86e74d9ba70091635be26a0c4f9bff@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250705-6, 7/5/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 7/5/2025 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/5/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/5/2025 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/5/25 12:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2025 8:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/25 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 8:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 8:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-03 12:56:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-03 02:50:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2025 11:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:12:48 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/25 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO just works off the lie that a correct simulation of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different than the direct execution, even though he 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't show the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction actually correctly simulated where they 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differ, and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves he is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest he comes is claiming that the simulation 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the "Call HHH"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be different when simulated then when executed, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as for "some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason" it must be just because otherwise HHH can't do 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, not being able to do something doesn't mean you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get to redefine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ar4e just showing you are as stupid as he is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator does not have to run a simulation to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completion if it can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that the input, A PROGRAM, never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most direct way to analyze this is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD)==0 and HHH1(DDD)==1 are both correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD does not call HHH1(DDD) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either "no" (encoded as 0) or "yes" (encoded as any other 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number) is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong asnwer to the quesstion "does DDD specify a halting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is *not* the actual question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THe actual question is whatever someone asks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the area of a square circle with a radius of 2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, if the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not "does DDD specify a halting computation?" or the same 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other computation then it is not in the scope of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the termination problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem has always been flatly incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> by making that the question. So I am reframing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question the same way that ZFC reframed Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are too stupid to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me where I go wrong on this explanation:
>>>>>>>>>> ZFC conquered Russell's Paradox by redefining how
>>>>>>>>>> sets are defined such that a set that is a member
>>>>>>>>>> of itself can no longer be defined.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "ZFC avoids this paradox by using axioms that restrict set 
>>>>>>>>>> formation."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what does that distraction have to do with halting problem?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Changing the definition of the problem is a way to solve it*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you aren't allowed to do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, ZFC doesn't solve the problem of Russell's Paradox in Naive 
>>>>>>> Set Theory, as it doesn't do anything to Naive Set Theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It replaced the erroneous naive set theory thus
>>>>>> conquering the misconception of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, by creating a totally new system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, The don't say that Russell's Paradox no longer exists in 
>>>>> Naive Set Theory, they
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It proves that Russell's Paradox was always a misconception
>>>> anchored in incoherence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it was anchored in the existing theory of the time.
>>>
>>> It showed that the theory had a major problem that needed to be 
>>> fixed, by finding a better system.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise I am conquering the misconception that
>>>>>> partial halt deciders must report on the behavior
>>>>>> of directly executed Turing machines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But you aren't making a totally new system, just lying about the 
>>>>> existing system. In Computability Theory, reporting on the behavior 
>>>>> of the direct execution of a Turing Machine is a valid operation. 
>>>>> To say it isn't is just a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The key correction that I am making to the halting problem
>>>> is the requirement that halt deciders report on the behavior
>>>> of a directly executed Turing machine when these have always
>>>> been outside of the domain of every Turing machine based decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But that isn't a "base" criteria in the system. That is like saying 
>>> you are keeping standard addition, but you want 5 + 7 to be 57 
>>> instead of 12, as that doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>> Your problem is you just don't understand how logic systems work at 
>>> all, and thus you are trying to tackle a problem without knowing what 
>>> you are doing.
>>>
>>> Sort of like taking a car with a minor knocking probem, and trying to 
>>> beat the engine with a big wrench.
>>>
>>> If you want to change that criteria, you need to work on 
>>> reformulating from the original axiom level.
>>>
>>> Note, ZFC didn't just ban sets from containing themselves, but 
>>> defined actual rules of how to build sets from previously created 
>>> sets, with a notation that the set being created isn't part of the 
>>> set of previously created sets. This RESULTS in the inability to 
>>> define a set containing itself.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========