Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:35:11 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <104ri0e$1i26b$2@dont-email.me>
References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <a60543ff9feb748df80b32970c67bb8c7ab13d89@i2pn2.org>
 <tJA8Q.6$r61e.2@fx11.ams4>
 <5e7f84c84b4ed51e195dd33afd9ed7eca89be454@i2pn2.org>
 <F9U8Q.300$ZQ4b.16@fx16.ams4> <1044r60$3v2k1$1@dont-email.me>
 <88bb43aca42ffc4a59d979c4c4f50441ce57b385@i2pn2.org>
 <10464n1$6cra$1@dont-email.me>
 <75c102da6bc85c8677b0a126d3d6f13c5018ae9c@i2pn2.org>
 <10466v2$7e0u$1@dont-email.me> <10480ld$nasn$1@dont-email.me>
 <1048j4b$qd4f$4@dont-email.me> <104akb7$jhv7$2@dont-email.me>
 <104bi5m$1hqln$9@dont-email.me> <104df2q$231m5$1@dont-email.me>
 <104e329$2852a$4@dont-email.me> <104g09p$2r0ur$1@dont-email.me>
 <104gk29$2uc68$4@dont-email.me> <104ihnn$3eee9$1@dont-email.me>
 <104j97d$3jrpl$2@dont-email.me> <104l9fb$5428$1@dont-email.me>
 <104loa2$7l4q$4@dont-email.me> <104o014$pi8a$1@dont-email.me>
 <104ohu4$t0u4$4@dont-email.me> <104qh66$1dge1$1@dont-email.me>
 <104r90d$1icss$1@dont-email.me> <104rcrq$1i26b$1@dont-email.me>
 <104rhs9$1k5eu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 19:35:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a1d75f8294debbd03c15dd6cba2f6d21";
	logging-data="1640651"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/n2vUHCCjqiq9ybrSw+l68"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vsGufL88jgs3NFoDkwUkozdpP3g=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <104rhs9$1k5eu$1@dont-email.me>

On 7/11/2025 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/11/2025 11:07 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/11/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/11/2025 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-07-10 14:15:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/10/2025 4:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-07-09 12:45:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Here is HHH matching that pattern*
>>>>>>> executed HHH simulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>> that simulates DDD that calls emulated emulated HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Here is the 197 page full execution trace of that*
>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That trace is a little long. Where in that trace is the forth 
>>>>>> level of
>>>>>> recursive simulation statrted?
>>>>>>
>>>>> After the non-terminating behavior pattern is matched
>>>>> on line 996
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>> HHH rejects DDD as specifying non-halting behavior.
>>>>
>>>> This is a good example of what I meant in another comment when
>>>> I said that you don't answer questions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you ask an incorrect question, like you did I provide
>>> an answer to the corrected question.
>>
>> On 7/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  > That changes the words of the question thus becomes
>>  > the strawman error.
>>
> 
> *I do finally have a rebuttal to your other issue*
> A Turing Machine halt decider 

Does not exist, as you have admitted on the record:


On 3/24/2025 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
 > A halt decider cannot exist

On 4/28/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 4/28/2025 11:54 AM, dbush wrote:
 >> And the halting function below is not a computable function:
 >>
 >
 > It is NEVER a computable function
 >
 >> 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

On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
 > When we define the HP as having H return a value
 > corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
 > and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
 > value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
 > in to a problem having no solution.

On 6/21/2024 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
 > the logical impossibility of specifying a halt decider H
 > that correctly reports the halt status of input D that is
 > defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H reports.
 > Of course this is impossible.

On 7/4/2023 12:57 AM, olcott wrote:
 > If you frame the problem in that a halt decider must divide up finite
 > strings pairs into those that halt when directly executed and those that
 > do not, then no single program can do this.

On 5/5/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 5/5/2025 4:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Strawman.  The square root of a dead rabbit does not exist, but the
 >> question of whether any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y halts when
 >> executed directly has a correct answer in all cases.
 >>
 >
 > It has a correct answer that cannot ever be computed

On 5/13/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote:
 > There is no time that we are ever going to directly
 > encode omniscience into a computer program. The
 > screwy idea of a universal halt decider that is
 > literally ALL KNOWING is just a screwy idea.