Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:48:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <v3sene$1gra7$10@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kjs9$3u7ng$1@dont-email.me> <v3l16f$5d3$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3mj84$bq2d$1@dont-email.me> <v3njiv$gatu$9@dont-email.me>
 <v3p37n$sb6j$1@dont-email.me> <v3poj0$v133$6@dont-email.me>
 <v3rvri$1ervp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:48:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec";
	logging-data="1600839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SHe35s2XZ3UV1dmIM31ck"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eKoukmeKSNNdPmEyqWONSjhjuHY=
In-Reply-To: <v3rvri$1ervp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6130

On 6/6/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-05 13:18:24 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/5/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-04 17:40:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/4/2024 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-03 18:14:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 9:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-03 12:20:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have 
>>>>>>>>>> been posted here.
>>>>>>>>>> PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in 
>>>>>>>>>> various traces.
>>>>>>>>>> i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims.  PO has acknowledged 
>>>>>>>>>> both these
>>>>>>>>>> results.  Same for the HH/DD variants.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed.  :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's right, but PO just carries on anyway!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct 
>>>>>>>>> result for
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts".  I am mystified why anyone 
>>>>>>>>> continues to
>>>>>>>>> discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that 
>>>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own
>>>>>>>> accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
>>>>>>> If the computed mapping differs from the specified one the
>>>>>>> decider does not solve the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
>>>>>> sum(2,3) cannot return the sum of 5 + 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
>>>>> If the mapping computed by sum differs from the specified one
>>>>> the program sum does not solve the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>  > Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting,
>>>>  > which IS about the direct execution of DD
>>>>
>>>> Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must
>>>> compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR
>>>> OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH).
>>>>
>>>> When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the
>>>> *HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY*
>>>>
>>>> When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no
>>>> an answer that H provides then the counter-example input
>>>> is precisely isomorphic to the question:
>>>> Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false?
>>>> Thus that question and the HP question are both incorrect
>>>> because both yes and no are the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> The theory of computation may be ignorant of the details of
>>>> how the context of who is asked a question changes the meaning
>>>> of this question, none-the-less this cannot be ignored.
>>>> It is and remains incorrect for the theory of computation
>>>> to ignore this.
>>>
>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that
>>> your statement
>>>
>>>>>>>> Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own
>>>>>>>> accept or reject state.
>>>
>>> does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
>>>
>>
>> Sure it does.
>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
>> sum(3,4) cannot correctly return the sum of 5 + 6.
> 
> That does not restrict what the problem statement can specify.
> 

When someone tries to prove that sum(3,4) is incorrect on the
basis that it cannot correctly provide the sum of 5 + 6, then
they are wrong.

When someone tries to prove that HH(DD,DD) is incorrect on the
basis that it cannot correctly provide the halt status of DD(DD)
then they are wrong.

Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH

When people ignore verified facts that prove that I am correct
that only proves that an honest dialogue never was their intention.

It is a verified fact the DD correctly simulated by HH does have
different behavior than the directly executed DD(DD). Ignoring
this fact indicates that one never intended any honest dialogue.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer