Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) ---
 mindless robots
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 18:53:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <58dab098b11f4b318dd18662fb4ba985ba58dfc9@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vso4a5$302lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsqhuu$1hl94$2@dont-email.me> <vsqknb$1ldpa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsrmn8$2o2f2$1@dont-email.me> <vstku7$p4u7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsu95l$1c5kt$1@dont-email.me> <vt01l0$39kn7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt28vk$1fe7a$1@dont-email.me> <vt2k6t$1onvt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt3ef4$2flgf$1@dont-email.me> <vt3fgd$2gu7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt6apu$12sjs$2@dont-email.me> <vt6g1f$180qf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt6lmk$1djk6$1@dont-email.me> <vt7tj4$2iso2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt9j0j$1snb$2@dont-email.me> <vtai1c$11kqr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtajkf$10asg$2@dont-email.me> <vtbe3g$1vs00$1@dont-email.me>
 <852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org>
 <vth52t$3in23$9@dont-email.me> <vth557$3a127$7@dont-email.me>
 <vth8lr$3n2du$2@dont-email.me>
 <a8ab995b650b894cbfb635478f7406c4eee4d187@i2pn2.org>
 <vthqtc$5g2e$2@dont-email.me> <vthr0e$3vmp3$3@dont-email.me>
 <vtites$15e5s$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 22:59:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="378823"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vtites$15e5s$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5338
Lines: 84

On 4/14/25 8:01 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2025 9:13 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/13/2025 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not 
>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has 
>>>>>>>>>> been shown.
>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean we can't use them.
>>>>>>>>>> Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER
>>>>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by 
>>>>>>>>>> taking it as
>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science 
>>>>>>>>>> behind him,
>>>>>>>>>> constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and
>>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. 
>>>>>>>>>> Navel
>>>>>>>>>> contemplation beckons.
>>>>>>>>>> Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as 
>>>>>>>>>> he wishes,
>>>>>>>>>> but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>>>>>>>>> It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to 
>>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent 
>>>>>>>>> its own
>>>>>>>>> termination.
>>>>>>>> Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
>>>>>>> because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
>>>>>>> before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no 
>>>>>> H exists that satisfies these requirements:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and*
>>>>> anchored in the ignorance  of rejecting the notion
>>>>> of a simulating termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
>>>>
>>>> No, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirements 
>>>
>>>
>>> AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE
>>> CIRCLE IN THE SAME TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, you think something that would make all formal systems 
>> complete would be stupid.
> 
> Formal systems are only incomplete[math] because they do not
> screen_out[] and reject[0] incorrect[0] inputs[0] thus enable 
> undecidability[math].
> 

Because the rules of logic don't allow that sort of filtering, because 
such filtering basically removes all the power that logic has.

Your idea of logic seem to be to just be able to bring back up the facts 
that you have learned by rote, and not to be able to think about them.