Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 19:47:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <616acc85ae127f9da371c96943966a0363328805@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> <vt6mts$1c6b1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt77vk$1t4il$1@dont-email.me> <vt79c6$1s72i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt7fdv$26l43$1@dont-email.me> <vt7g2v$2762k$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt9iv1$1snb$1@dont-email.me> <vt9k21$1tds$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt9kr1$3f0a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 23:47:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4013182"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vt9kr1$3f0a$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6874
Lines: 131

On 4/10/25 7:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2025 6:25 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/10/2025 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2025 11:05 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2025 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/9/2025 9:11 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/9/2025 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/9/2025 3:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2025 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2025 1:58 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.apr.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2025 10:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.apr.2025 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2025 2:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.apr.2025 om 06:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case there is nothing to prevent, because the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string specifies a program that halts. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This stuff is simply over-your-head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) meets the above: *Simulating termination analyzer 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principle*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with sufficient competence with the C programming 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone with a little bit of C knowledge understands that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> if HHH returns with a value 0, then DDD halts. 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> NOT ANY OTHER DAMN DDD IN THE UNIVERSE NITWIT.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If HHH would correctly simulate DD (and the functions called 
>>>>>>>>>> by DD) then the simulated HHH would return to DD and DD would 
>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simply over your level of technical competence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But HHH failed to complete the simulation of the halting program, 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH is only required to report on the behavior of its
>>>>>>>>> own correct simulation (meaning the according to the
>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language) and would be
>>>>>>>>> incorrect to report on any other behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means HHH has conflicting requirements,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it just means that the ones that you have
>>>>>>> been saying are f-cked up and no-one noticed this before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > because to perform a
>>>>>>>  > correct simulation of its input it cannot halt itself, and 
>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>>  > can't report that.
>>>>>>> In other words you simply "don't believe in" the variant
>>>>>>> form of mathematical induction that HHH uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because the form it uses is "changing the input".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never changed the input.
>>>>
>>>> You absolutely did when you used the form of induction you did.
>>>>
>>>> You hypothesized changing the code of HHH, which is part of the input.
>>>>
>>>> Changing the input, hypothetically or otherwise, is not allowed.
>>>
>>> *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.
>>
>> Except when doing so changes the input, as you're doing.
>>
>> Changing the input is not allowed.
> 
> As I pointed out simulating termination analyzers
> are inherently required to terminate the simulation
> of any input that would prevent their own termination.
> 
> To say this is not allowed stupidly ignores the basic
> requirement that termination analyzers must always halt.
> 
> 

And are also required to get the right answer, or be wrong, and the fact 
they do abort there simulation doesn't mean they had justifcation to do so.

Sorry, you just don't understand that "Get the Right Answer" is not a 
proper algorithmic step.

If your HHH aborts it simulation, it needs to show that even though it 
does this (and thus the copy of it called by DDD does to) it is still 
the right answer.

In particular, the requiremet to always terminate its simulation means 
that by your own definitions, it can't assume that it does a correct 
simulation, and thus "Correctly Simulated by HHH" is just an oxymoron, 
showning that you are a regular moron.