Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:02:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <17e0bda2b4b1cf02b669523025359c9101ef1a6d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me>
	<4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
	<vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
	<vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
	<vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me> <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me> <vqii32$bcd0$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqijht$bcso$3@dont-email.me> <vqik16$bcd0$5@dont-email.me>
	<vqine6$cton$1@dont-email.me> <vqiovv$d4j1$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqiqk0$dc6s$2@dont-email.me> <vqirn6$dje3$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqiug9$duqq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:02:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3558681"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Sat, 08 Mar 2025 20:30:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/8/2025 7:43 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 6:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a simulating
>>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer specifying infinite recursion or
>>>>>>>>>>> recursive emulation cannot possibly reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>> state and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination
>>>>>>>>>> analyzer, simulating or otherwise, are specified by the
>>>>>>>>>> specification that is the halting function:
>>>>>>>>>> (<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
>>>>>>>>>> And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE* Replacing
>>>>>>>>> the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently
>>>>>>>>> running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
>>>>>>>>> and terminate normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive
>>>>>>>>> emulation.
>>>>>>>>> It is ridiculously stupid to believe that HHH must report on
>>>>>>>>> behavior other than the above behavior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It must if it is to be classified as a halt decider or
>>>>>>>> termination analyzer as per the definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words you believe that HHH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is required to map the halting function to meet the requirements to
>>>>>> be a halt decider / termination analyzer.
>>>>>>
>>>>> HHH must map from the input finite string DD to the behavior that
>>>>> this finite string specifies
>>>>
>>>> And what it specifies, to be considered a solution to the halting
>>>> problem, is given by the specification:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> In the same way that Sum(5,3) == 9 That is misconception is very
>>> widely held does not make it not a misconception.
>>>
>> In other words, you have no rebuttal to the fact that HHH doesn't meet
>> the requirements to be a solution to the halting problem.
> 
> If the halting problem actually requires that the "decider"
> report on behavior other than what the input specifies then its notion
> of a halting decider is not even a decider in computer science.
Such as your HHH simulating not itself, but *what it would do if it
were unconditional*

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.