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: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 10:13:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <62d1598bdbe9e02da51cf7f953e8d469852bfc9f@i2pn2.org>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvamqc$o6v5$4@dont-email.me>
	<vvan7q$o4v0$1@dont-email.me> <ts5SP.113145$_Npd.41800@fx01.ams4>
	<vvao8p$o4v0$2@dont-email.me> <vvav61$vtiu$5@dont-email.me>
	<vvavii$o4v0$5@dont-email.me> <Pp7SP.77677$B6tf.9929@fx02.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 10:13:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3354655"; 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 Mon, 05 May 2025 18:26:55 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:
> On Mon, 05 May 2025 14:21:06 -0400, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/5/2025 2:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2025 11:16 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2025 12:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 05 May 2025 11:58:50 -0400, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/2025 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>> When HHH computes the mapping from *its input* to the behavior of
>>>>>>> DD emulated by HHH this includes HHH emulating itself emulating
>>>>>>> DD.
>>>>>>> This matches the infinite recursion behavior pattern.
>>>>>>> Thus the Halting Problem's "impossible" input is correctly
>>>>>>> determined to be non-halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is a contradiction.  Therefore the assumption that the above
>>>>>> mapping is computable is proven false, as Linz and others have
>>>>>> proved and as you have *explicitly* agreed is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> The category (type) error manifests in all extant halting problem
>>>>> proofs including Linz.  It is impossible to prove something which is
>>>>> ill-formed in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> All algorithms either halt or do not halt when executed directly.
>>>> Therefore the problem is not ill formed.
>>>>
>>> When BOTH Boolean RETURN VALUES are the wrong answer THEN THE PROBLEM
>>> IS ILL-FORMED. Self-contradiction must be screened out as semantically
>>> incorrect.
>> 
>> In other words, you're claiming that there exists an algorithm, i.e. a
>> fixed immutable sequence of instructions, that neither halts nor does
>> not halt when executed directly.
> 
> It neither halts nor does not halt because it is predicated on a
> category (type) error so it CANNOT be executed directly.
DD can most definitely be executed, and it halts.

>> Failure to do so in your next reply or within one hour of your next
>> posting in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-the-record
>> admission that the halting problem is NOT ill-formed and that the below
>> criteria is VALID:
> 
> There is nothing to execute directly; if you try to by using a
> simulating halt decider you get infinite recursion as a manifestation of
> the category (type) error in the problem definition.
We have code for DD and a claimed HHH.

-- 
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.