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: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 19:05:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c0a5ed98ae4fc525211fe587b227f40217d8546b@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>
 <vtg2fc$2jd0g$1@dont-email.me> <vth43f$3in23$3@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 00:01:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="241454"; 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: <vth43f$3in23$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 4/13/25 3:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2025 5:08 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 13/04/2025 09:54, 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?
>>
> 
> The test-program and the program-under-test are not the same
> program. The question is: Can DD simulated by HHH possibly
> reach its own final halt state?

But for DD to BE the "test-program" it must be a PROGRAM, and thus 
includes all the code it uses, and thus HHH must simulate that version 
to determine the answer.

Answer me this, how does HHH correctly emulate DD without looking at 
that code?

If the input doesn't include the code for HHH, them HHH must stop its 
simulation at the point of the CALL HHH, or admit to not even correctly 
partially simulating the input.

If the input DOES incldue the code for HHH, then HHH MUST simulate that 
code to do what it says it does,

So, they question back to you is how does your HHH correct simulate its 
input?

If it doesn't then you are admitting that your criteria is just a lie.

> 
>> Or why doesn't it save itself a huge amount of code and simply return 
>> 1 for all inputs?
>>
> 
> Because that is a woefully stupid idea?
> 

In other words, you think doing what you say you are doing is a stupid idea.

HHH to "correctly simulate" its input, must actually do that.