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) ---
 mindless robots
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 18:50:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <66ba17c44fbe5533b1b4710e541b77f011bacefc@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> <vth8ql$3a127$8@dont-email.me>
 <vthhi5$3uil9$2@dont-email.me> <vthimk$3vmp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vthqns$5g2e$1@dont-email.me> <vthqut$3vmp3$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtisid$15e5s$1@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 22:59:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="378823"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vtisid$15e5s$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8651
Lines: 155

On 4/14/25 7:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/13/2025 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2025 6:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2025 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2025 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2025 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 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, you have no interest in something that would make 
>>>>>> all truth provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It will remain forever impossible to prove that five minutes
>>>>> ago ever existed. This is empirical truth mislabeled as synthetic 
>>>>> truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Semantic truth poorly labeled as analytic truth is the only
>>>>> truth that is either provable else untrue. It is {provable}
>>>>> on the basis of semantic connections to expressions that are
>>>>> stipulated as true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you do want something that would make all truth provable.  An H 
>>>> that meets the following requirements would do that, therefore these 
>>>> requirements are not "wrong":
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Ignorance on your part about this*
>>> https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/43748/how-do-we-know- 
>>> the--wasnt-created-5-minutes-ago#:~:text=Ask%20Question,non- 
>>> falsifiable%20and%20all).
>>
>> None-the-less an H that meets the requirements below would make all 
>> formal systems complete.  That makes such an H *very* useful, and 
>> therefore the requirements are not "wrong".
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> Such an HHH works fine when the input DD is not attempting
> to do the opposite of whatever this HHH reports. This is not
> a problem though. DD merely changes its own behavior through
> the pathological self-reference that it implements.
> 
> Then HHH simply reports on this changed behavior. HHH need not
> even know that DD is calling itself. It only need to know that
> the behavior of DD would prevent its own termination.
> 

But, by definiton, a full decider must handle ALL inputs, so you are 
just admitting that your algorithm is deficient.

DD doesn't CHANGE its behavior, it DEFINES it (initially and forever) by 
that method.

Remember, for DD to be a program, it must first be FULLY defined, and 
thus the version of HHH that it uses picked, and only after then does it 
even have behavior.

HHH doesn't report on a change of behavior, as such a concept means that 
the input program was changed, but nobody did that. The closest is that 
HHH makes the INCORRECT presumption that it can change the code that it 
sees in DD to be some other version of HHH which doesn't abort its 
simulation, (which is thus a falsehood, as that isn't the HHH that DD 
was built on.

Ultimately, your error stems from not understanding what a PROGRAM is. 
The C function DD, by itself, isn't a program, doesn't have behavior, 
and isn't a valid input to a halt decider. Only after the program is 
completed by adding the definition of the HHH that it calls does it 
become actually a program, and that definition of the HHH that it calls 
becomes part of the program description (and that definition needs to be 
COMPLETE).

Yes, you have seen articles describing looking at the behavior of C 
functions, but they have always been looking at LEAF C functions, or C 
funcitons with all the functions they call included. Your failure to 
understand what those were talking about, which used perhaps imprecise 
terminology, because they assumed a minimal compentence in the field 
that you clearly don't have, is just being totally revealed in your errors.

Sorry, but all you have been doing for you last decades is just prove to 
the universe that you just don't understand that basics of what you 
talki about, but you look at things with distortion lens that make you 
not understand what you see.