Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 11:34:57 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <104g0rh$2r4a4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101o913$db96$2@dont-email.me> <101o9rb$hd6o$1@dont-email.me> <101oa30$db96$4@dont-email.me> <101obb4$hd6o$4@dont-email.me> <101oc24$hlr6$2@dont-email.me> <101ocpc$hd6o$7@dont-email.me> <101od0p$i3m6$2@dont-email.me> <1049edr$10io1$2@dont-email.me> <a25b36c514731c7946fc2fb5e003c4dda451452e@i2pn2.org> <1049jhv$11mmt$2@dont-email.me> <89d2edbab76401270efa67a8fbc135d5c47fefab@i2pn2.org> <104bjmr$1hqln$16@dont-email.me> <3f64fdd81d67415b7b0e305463d950c0c71e2db7@i2pn2.org> <EKKdnXZfl9Qpf_T1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org> <104cud2$1r72a$2@dont-email.me> <a346224cd5d8b4001580eb6e5ff8783e58c9b7f5@i2pn2.org> <104e46s$28pqb$2@dont-email.me> <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org> <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:34:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="74139872e41d5936ab037b276ce52aef";
	logging-data="2986308"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YXRm/h5TgJa0RdoNZxhY4"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yS/fiAG2dlDktZm7lLziYp3D6ZQ=

On 2025-07-06 20:06:33 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2025 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/25 12:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2025 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/25 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/25 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 8:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:46 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes there is no algorithm that does that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let The Record Show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That Peter Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has *EXPLICITLY* admitted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no algorithm H exists that meets the above requirements, which is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precisely the theorem that the halting problem proofs prove.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the exact same way that there is no set of all set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that contain themselves. ZFC did not solve Russell's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox as much as it showed that Russell's Paradox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was anchored in an incoherent foundation, now called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which arose because the axioms of naive set theory created a contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise with halt deciders that are required to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the behavior of directly executed Turing machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And what is the CONTRADICTION?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> The result is just some things are not computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The result is that there cannot possibly be
>>>>>>>>>>> an *ACTUAL INPUT* that does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its partial halt decider decides
>>>>>>>>>>> thus the HP proof fails before it begins.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sure there is.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In order to have an honest dialogue you must pay
>>>>>>>>> 100% complete attention to every single word.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You can't just erase one of the words that I said
>>>>>>>>> and then form a rebuttal on that basis.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Directly executed Turing machines have always been
>>>>>>>>> outside of the domain of every Turing machine based
>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Your refusal to providee a source is your admission that you are just a liar.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Remember, The DEFINITION of a Halt Deicder is that it is to be a 
>>>>>>>> decider that decides if the program represented by its input will halt 
>>>>>>>> when run.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It has never been the program represented by its input
>>>>>>> it has always been the behavior specified by its input.
>>>>>>> This is the key mistake that no one noticed in 90 years.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an 
>>>>>> input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run 
>>>>>> forever.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sounds like the program and its representation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> With pathological self-reference the directly
>>>>> executed machine will not have the same
>>>>> behavior as the correctly simulated machine
>>>>> specification.
>>>> 
>>>> Sure it does.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> *EVERY BOT FIGURES THIS OUT ON ITS OWN*
>> 
>> No, it just isn't smart enough to detect that you lied in your premise.
>> 
>>> There is no way that DDD simulated by HHH (according
>>> to the semantics of the C programming language)
>>> can possibly reach its own "return" statement final
>>> halt state.
>> 
>> And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input and return 
>> an answer
>> 
> 
> You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated
> until non-existent completion is especially nuts because
> you have been told about this dozens of times.
> 
> What the F is wrong with you?

Looks like intolerance of dishonesty.

-- 
Mikko