Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do computations actually work?
Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 17:45:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8784d406f44a3132588c4202e76f67c9e83c315b@i2pn2.org>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <95db078e80b2868ed15a9a9a2af0280d96234a3a@i2pn2.org>
 <100jo18$2mhfd$1@dont-email.me> <100jpv9$2m0ln$4@dont-email.me>
 <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me>
 <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>
 <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <100onkd$3t5cb$1@dont-email.me>
 <100p6vj$3vlgq$1@dont-email.me> <100q6b1$5buc$2@dont-email.me>
 <100rtvq$ji9l$1@dont-email.me> <100sod2$p071$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 21:57:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1783864"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <100sod2$p071$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/24/25 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2025 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-23 16:04:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/23/2025 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-23 02:47:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2025 8:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/05/2025 06:41, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/05/2025 06:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2025 00:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing proved that what you're asking is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is not what he proved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you'll be able to write a universal termination analyser 
>>>>>>>>> that can
>>>>>>>>> correctly report for any program and any input whether it 
>>>>>>>>> halts. Good
>>>>>>>>> luck with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course not. But I'm just reflecting. He seemed to think that 
>>>>>>> my inability to write the kind of program Turing envisaged (an 
>>>>>>> inability that I readily concede) is evidence for his argument. 
>>>>>>> Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if olcott had refuted the proofs of the
>>>>>>>> insolvability of the Halting Problem -- or even if he had proved
>>>>>>>> that a universal halt decider is possible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And we both know what we both think of that idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- that doesn't imply
>>>>>>>> that he or anyone else would be able to write one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've never been entirely clear on what olcott is claiming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor I. Mike Terry seems to have a pretty good handle on it, but 
>>>>>>> no matter how clearly he explains it to me my eyes glaze over and 
>>>>>>> I start to snore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, it's the way I tell 'em!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's what the tabloids might have said about it, if it had made 
>>>>>> the front pages when the story broke:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   COMPUTER BOFFIN IS TURING IN HIS GRAVE!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   An Internet crank claims to have refuted Linz HP proof by 
>>>>>> creating a
>>>>>>   Halt Decider that CORRECTLY decides its own "impossible input"!
>>>>>>   The computing world is underwhelmed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better?  (Appologies for the headline, it's the best I could come 
>>>>>> up with.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a key detail about ALL of these proofs
>>>>> that no one has paid attention to for 90 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is impossible to define *AN INPUT* to HHH that
>>>>> does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns.
>>>>
>>>> That is a key detail about HHH. Your HHH is not a part of those proofs.
>>>
>>> All of the proofs work this same way.
>>
>> No, they don't. Some proofs derive the same conclusion with an 
>> essentially
>> different approach.
>>
>> However, in spite of the differences, they do share a common fieature:
>> your HHH is not a part of any of the proofs.
>>
> 
> All of the conventional proofs of the HP assume that
> there is an *input D* that can actually do the opposite
> of whatever value that HHH returns. For 90 years people
> got totally confused about what an input is and what
> it is not.

No, you just refuse to accept the DEFINITION of what it is.

> 
> int main()
> {
>    DD(); // This DD is not the input to the HHH that DD calls.
> }       // It has always had a different execution trace than
>          // DD simulated by HHH according to the rules of the
>          // x86 language.
> 
> 

Right THAT DD isn't, but what is the input is the representation of that 
program that was given to HHH.

You seem to not understand that ALL COPIES of a given program do the 
same thing, and thus are interchangable.