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: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT ---
 Ignoramus !!!
Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 06:52:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c0311a9a89d9bd88abcb5973b47829b8654b27d8@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me>
 <852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org>
 <vth52t$3in23$9@dont-email.me> <vth557$3a127$7@dont-email.me>
 <vth8lr$3n2du$2@dont-email.me>
 <a8ab995b650b894cbfb635478f7406c4eee4d187@i2pn2.org>
 <vthqtc$5g2e$2@dont-email.me>
 <63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org>
 <vtit6a$15e5s$3@dont-email.me> <vtivmo$19aqd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtkc4l$2h48g$3@dont-email.me> <vtkdnm$2iqu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtkkge$2si58$2@dont-email.me> <vtl56j$3aajg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtlu0a$3vgp0$1@dont-email.me> <vtm04f$2a90$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtm9q8$aut7$1@dont-email.me> <vtmah8$2a90$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me> <vtmh1n$2a90$3@dont-email.me>
 <vto4vh$23i07$1@dont-email.me> <vto7qu$267in$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtopqv$2meit$1@dont-email.me> <vung5v$2uf19$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuo87d$3jn5n$3@dont-email.me> <vuq7bm$1gtva$1@dont-email.me>
 <vutfj1$gmbi$5@dont-email.me> <vv21pc$p89b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv3ql2$2bdhn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 10:54:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2942279"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vv3ql2$2bdhn$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5965
Lines: 107

On 5/2/25 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/2/2025 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-30 15:28:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/29/2025 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-28 15:52:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/28/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-04-16 17:36:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/16/2025 7:29 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16/04/2025 12:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> sum(3,2) IS NOT THE SAME AS sum(5,2).
>>>>>>>>> IT IS EITHER STUPID OR DISHONEST FOR YOU TO TRY TO
>>>>>>>>> GET AWAY FOR CLAIMING THIS USING THE STRAW DECEPTION
>>>>>>>>> INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT PARAPHRASE OF MY WORDS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whether sum(3,2) is or is not the same as sum(5,2) is not the 
>>>>>>>> question. The question is whether a universal termination 
>>>>>>>> analyser can be constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has been rigorously proved. If you want to overturn the 
>>>>>>>> proof you've got your work cut out to persuade anyone to listen, 
>>>>>>>> not least because anyone who tries to enter into a dialogue with 
>>>>>>>> you is met with contempt and scorn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The proof stands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing
>>>>>>> else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever
>>>>>>> mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A halt decider is is not allowed to compute "whatever" mapping. It is
>>>>>> required to compute one specific mapping: to "no" if the computation
>>>>>> described by the input can be continesd forever without halting, to
>>>>>> "no" otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> It must do this by applying the finite string transformation
>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD).
>>>>
>>>> No, it needn't. A halt decider cannot do other than certain finite 
>>>> string
>>>> operations. No relation to x86 language is required.
>>>>
>>>>> This DOES NOT DERIVE THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD.
>>>>
>>>> Whether the execution is "direct" or otherwise is irrelevant. A 
>>>> computation
>>>> either halts or not. A halt decider must just tell whether the 
>>>> somputation
>>>> halts. It is true that no Turing machine can determine this about every
>>>> computation, i.e., no Turing machine is a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>>> It DOES DERIVE DD EMULATED BY HHH AND ALSO DERIVES THE RECURSIVE
>>>>> EMULATION OF HHH EMULATING ITSELF EMULATING DD.
>>>>
>>>> Which are not mentioned in the halting problem.
>>>
>>> When understand rather than simply ignore the HHH/DD
>>> example it can be seen that every conventional halting
>>> problem proof suffers the same fate.
>>
>> That you (or some other people) don't understand the proof is not fatal.
>>
>>> The contradictory part of the "impossible" input IS NEVER REACHABLE.
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>
>> It is unless HHH never returns. 
> 
> When DD is correctly simulated by HHH it is impossible
> for any HHH to return to any emulated DD.

And when HHH correctly simulates DD, it never gives an answer, and the 
only possible HHH that does so isn't the one you have specified.

Thus, your condition you begin with is just a lie.

> 
> This is only ordinary computer programming that no
> one here seems to understand.


No, it is just your pathoological lying which says that HHH is two 
different programs at once.

> 
>> It HHH never returns it is not a halt
>> decider and therefore is not a counter-example to the proof. If it
>> returns it returns the wrong answer and therefore is not a counter-
>> example to the proof.
>>
> 
>