Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Leap=3A_Why_Behavioral_Divergence?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Implies_a_Type_Distinction_in_the_Halting_Problem?=
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 07:40:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b266cd51d5cba3865593d91a03fab677469acf01@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv1UP.77894$JJT6.54808@fx16.ams4> <vvqd4u$g8a1$1@dont-email.me>
 <7N2UP.527443$wBt6.464256@fx15.ams4> <vvqfgq$gmmk$1@dont-email.me>
 <os3UP.670056$BFJ.223954@fx13.ams4> <vvqgpt$gmmk$4@dont-email.me>
 <aG3UP.366972$wBVe.321504@fx06.ams4> <vvqhaj$gldn$6@dont-email.me>
 <bV3UP.101097$0ia.1168@fx11.ams4> <vvqkff$gldn$13@dont-email.me>
 <WH4UP.229898$_Npd.172992@fx01.ams4> <vvqm03$i3hn$1@dont-email.me>
 <g55UP.688178$4AM6.545580@fx17.ams4>
 <87o6vy4ulc.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvrb1g$me5h$2@dont-email.me>
 <f2bc11d4d57ba6260c0cca597204057a28c8276e@i2pn2.org>
 <vvrg32$n9a9$2@dont-email.me>
 <faa0eeeda0e841eacce5537fc2a994b6be9d73f9@i2pn2.org>
 <vvrk1u$o2ab$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 11:51:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="23432"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvrk1u$o2ab$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/11/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/11/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/11/25 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2025 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/25 7:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/11/2025 6:05 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:15:47 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/05/2025 17:59, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> it is impossible to obtain a halting result
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sure looks like a concession that it's impossible to devise an
>>>>>>>> algorithm that will produce a halting result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well done. We got you there in the end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. The reason why it is impossible to obtain a halting result for
>>>>>>> pathological input is not the reason proposed by Turing (i.e. self-
>>>>>>> referential diagonalization), it is impossible to obtain a 
>>>>>>> halting result
>>>>>>> for pathological input because the self-referential conflation of 
>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>> and input is a category error that prevents us from performing
>>>>>>> diagonalization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible to determine whether a given input is 
>>>>>> "pathological" or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To usefully advance research in this area pathological input 
>>>>>>> needs to be
>>>>>>> excluded from the set of programs that can be analysed by a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can this exclusion be performed reliably and consistently?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a good question. The answer is definitely
>>>>> yes. When HHH emulates DDD it only needs to see
>>>>> that DDD is calling itself with no conditional branch
>>>>> instructions inbetween.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether a function computed by a Turing machine can
>>>>> do this is a different question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, try to do it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No need to. DDD emulated by HHH according to the
>>> rules of the computational language that DD is
>>> encoded within already proves that the HP
>>> "impossible" input specifies a non-halting
>>> sequence of configurations.
>>
>> So, you are admitting you can't.
>>
> 
> I never admitted any such thing.
> That I do not affirm that X is true
> is not at all me affirming that X is false.

Sure you did, you just don't understand that you did.

YOU have the burden of proof for your positive afferemations.

YOU have claimed you setup to be "equvalent" to Turing Machines.

If is it, that means that if you can show your setup can do it, then so 
can a Turing Machie,

Then you admit that your "proof" doesn't prove that a Turing Machine can 
also do it, so obviously you are admitting that you setup isn't actually 
a Turing Equivalent.

Your problem is from your previous stipulations, you claim s proved to 
be a lie, as you have stipulated:

1) The Input is, and only is, the code for the C Function DDD
2) That the decider HHH must be a pure function.
3) That the decider must correctly emulate the input per the definitoion 
of the computational languge they are expressed in (C or x86)

But, to do 3, the decider must have available the code of the thing it 
is to correctly emulate (becuase of 2, it can't look elsewhere) and 
becuase of 1, it isn't in the input

Thus Your HHH can't exist by your rules.

Also, if you fix the problem with stipulation 1 and include the code, 
then to do 3, it MUST emulate to the end of the function, and all your 
HHHs that you imagine that give an answer don't do that (and an HHH that 
fails to answer fails to meet your requirements to be a decider).

> 
> It is me trying to get you to focus on one
> single point and not be scatterbrained all
> over the place.

No, it is you trying to hide your lies behind equivocation,

> 
> Prior to my work the answer for the halt status
> of the HP's impossible input was: NO ONE KNOWS.
> After my work the halt status becomes NON-HALTING.
> This by itself is much more than anyone else
> has ever accomplished with the HP.
> 


WRONG.

The Halt Status of any particular D is fully know, it is the opposite of 
the ONE answer that the particular H(D) returned.

Since, H, to be a decider, MUST return an answer, we can compute that 
answer, and thus compute the correct answer.

On you don't know, because you are stupid, and you confuse yourself by 
not knowing what you are talking about.

The problem ALWAYS looks at one decider and one input at a time. Trying 
to hide behind the smoke screen of lies of infinite sets that aren't 
actually there is your stratagy, but it fails when your strawmen go up 
in flame when the come in contact with that Lake of Fire that burns up 
the lies.

Your logic is just based on equivocating to lie. Sometimes you have a 
definite HHH, but your DDD isn't a program as you don't complete it, and 
then you imagine it being a different thing then what you setup actually 
makes it (it calls a HHH other than the one that you have)

Other times you try to say you have an infinite set up programs, but you 
can't write an infinte set of programs and put it into you computer. You 
can imagine an infintie set of computers, but each one has only one 
program in it, and each of those is wrong.

Your logic is based on the LIE that you get to change the definitions of 
the problem, which just show that you are nothing but a liar, as that is 
fundamentally false.