Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<c74920a0e6e73da1eb8a57b10e7ebf930af8fd88@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes <noreply@example.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 10:12:44 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <c74920a0e6e73da1eb8a57b10e7ebf930af8fd88@i2pn2.org> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org> <104cud2$1r72a$2@dont-email.me> <a346224cd5d8b4001580eb6e5ff8783e58c9b7f5@i2pn2.org> <104e46s$28pqb$2@dont-email.me> <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org> <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me> <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org> <104fduv$2n8gq$2@dont-email.me> <4cb5d16be8d1e6549823f35081050e7dad462da2@i2pn2.org> <104gi8j$2uc68$2@dont-email.me> <152859a4a4ef31aa45580e873eb6970c34b97ef9@i2pn2.org> <104hmb5$35gkb$1@dont-email.me> <f12be9e3474cf08b01ae1a4381f77205bbac1da3@i2pn2.org> <104i15g$36mma$2@dont-email.me> <c0cf1db3b26b15b6b2df8a22e9f415c10aee59a7@i2pn2.org> <104jcqn$3jrpl$10@dont-email.me> <104lb03$13ioh$2@dont-email.me> <104lp8o$7l4q$7@dont-email.me> <04a93d06faca2452826dc1d26ebac896a3eddf73@i2pn2.org> <104lt1i$7l4q$12@dont-email.me> <c2e87dfea1b14e36806a89cbdc676fdd7b5345f3@i2pn2.org> <104m41b$a3nh$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 10:12:44 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4166789"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 11:06:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/9/2025 10:42 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 09:06:42 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/9/2025 8:37 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:02:16 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/9/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> All Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their >>>>> actual inputs. This entails that they never compute any mapping from >>>>> non-inputs. >>>> It matters more what they map it to, i.e. which mapping they compute. >>>> HHH does not compute the halting function. >>> It is a matter of verified fact that HHH does correctly determine that >>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own emulated >>> final halt state. >> Yes. That is not the halting function. > Yes it is the halting function. > The actual question posed to HHH is: > Does your input specify behavior that cannot reach its own final halt > state? Yes, that is not the mathematical function that pairs encodings of programs with their halting state. >> I have another program here that (tautologically) determines that it >> cannot simulate ANY code (according to x86 semantics) to a halting >> state - by simulating zero steps :-) That tells me nothing about >> whether the input halts when executed. > That changes the words of the question thus becomes the strawman error. No, it answers the same question as HHH: does the simulation halt? >> How can your beloved Aprove even say anything about its inputs? Since programs are not in its domain... >>>> How could HHH abort and not halt? >>> None of the code in HHH can possibly help DDD correctly emulated by >>> HHH to reach its own emulated final halt state. >> The abort could, if you hadn't botched it with static variables. > DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language > continues to emulate the first four instructions of DDD in recursive > emulation until HHH aborts its emulation immediately killing every DDD > before any of them reach their own "ret" instruction. Or before they reach the abort. > I keep asking for your credentials because you seem to not have enough > technical knowledge about ordinary programming. Doesn't sound like a degree would convince you. >>> The behavior that the input to HHH(DDD) actually specifies is the only >>> behavior that any decider can possibly report on. >>> That anyone believes that HHH is required to report on the behavior of >>> a non-input merely proves a lack of sufficient understanding of how >>> Turing machine deciders work. >> Yes, what a processor does - turning code into behaviour - is clearly >> uncomputable. I'll take that as agreement. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.