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: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 18:57:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dfdeb144781090e3a38f7918b642255f06cbb9e0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
 <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me>
 <5b14da4260c0b7e3235ce05f752c092fade4d70e.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvnsae$3in62$9@dont-email.me>
 <11cc09876004107c47467b9481f614f45f450f2c.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvnu9k$3k258$2@dont-email.me>
 <674a661e498281cca55b322cbd5905a1988a6171.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvnvut$3kher$3@dont-email.me>
 <088556c03067d8de7184bf88dd01cc6b8c99ba1b.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo1ni$3l14p$1@dont-email.me>
 <c09f468e8485c22150cedb12a9010b401f292054.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo58a$3lnkd$1@dont-email.me>
 <dc76ef3215a83481dfddc40c466bb9ebc0e77341.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo709$3m1oc$1@dont-email.me>
 <b503e969e23dd1b2a6201ba78c82c9ff7906eaae.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo9e8$3m1oc$3@dont-email.me>
 <b9cec56c1d257e09fdf8043f02f123a4243de6e1.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvoife$3ofmu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 23:18:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4004157"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vvoife$3ofmu$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/10/25 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/10/2025 4:44 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 14:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/10/2025 2:02 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 13:47 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/10/2025 1:37 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 13:17 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 1:09 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 12:17 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 12:01 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:47 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 11:29 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 11:06 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:45 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 10:28 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 09:33 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look at their replies to this post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a one of them will agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            return; // final halt state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When 1 or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH then the correctly simulated DDD cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its "return" instruction (final halt 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They have consistently disagreed with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple point for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science would spend years working on so few lines of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I created a whole x86utm operating system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It correctly determines that the halting problem's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise "impossible" input is actually non halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>              HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         From I know HHH(DD) decides whether the input DD 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "impossible"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD has the standard form of the "impossible" input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH merely rejects it as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said 'merely' rejects it as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, POOH do not answer the input of any other function?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input that has baffled computer scientists for 90
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years is merely correctly determined to be non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the behavior of this input is measured by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating this input according to the rules of the x86
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same thing applies to the Linz proof yet cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be understood until after HHH(DDD) and HHH(DD) are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully understood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) (whatever) at most says DDD is a pathological/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>> midtaken input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Others of what you say are your imagine and wishes, so far 
>>>>>>>>>>>> so true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH accor not the 'HHH' that makes the final 
>>>>>>>>>>> decision
>>>>>>>> (otherwise, it will be an infinite recursive call which you agreed)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ding to the rules of
>>>>>>>>>>> the x86 language specifies recursive emulation
>>>>>>>>>>> that cannot possibly reach the final halt state
>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have no problem with that. And, you said HHH merely rejects 
>>>>>>>>>> it as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>> You had denied HHH can decide the halting property of any 
>>>>>>>>>> input, except DDD/DD/D..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As long as HHH correctly determines the halt status
>>>>>>>>> of a single input that has no inputs then HHH is
>>>>>>>>> a correct termination analyzer for that input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go it, that is a stronger statement that HHH ONLY decides DD.
>>>>>>>> I have no problem with that, but be noticed that the HHH inside DD
>>>>>>>> is not the 'HHH' that makes the final decision (otherwise, the 
>>>>>>>> 'HHH'
>>>>>>>> will be an infinite recursive which cannot make any decision, which
>>>>>>>> you had agreed)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH(DD) correctly determines that its input specifies
>>>>>>> recursive emulation when this input is emulated by HHH
>>>>>>> HHH according to the rules of the x86 language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    From the about, so you are talking about 'the HHH' which does 
>>>>>> not compute the final
>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH does recognize the recursive emulation pattern
>>>>> of DDD emulated by HHH according to the rules of
>>>>> the x86 language.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Thus exactly meets the following specification*
>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>         If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>         input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>>>         would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This H won't be the same HHH inside the DD, otherwise an infinite 
>>>>>> recursive call happens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It must always be the outermost HHH that does this
>>>>> because it has seen one entire recursive emulation
>>>>> more than the next inner HHH.
>>>>
>>>> No problem. H is not HHH.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The H is the template that Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>> HHH is a specific implementation of H.
>>>
>>>> This is also a pitty no one here understand POOH can help AI 
>>>> industry and mankind, even so mini.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the same halting problem after its mistake
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========