Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting. --- You are not paying attention
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:14:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <v78g43$1rc43$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de> <v6mjlg$20sio$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mlfj$bbr$2@news.muc.de> <v6mlk6$21d9q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me> <v6op7v$2fuva$5@dont-email.me>
 <v6qoms$2ukg7$1@dont-email.me> <v6rat7$30qtt$8@dont-email.me>
 <v6repr$32501$2@dont-email.me> <v6tbpe$3gg4d$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6traj$3imib$7@dont-email.me> <v703f7$2ooi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v70of6$61d8$8@dont-email.me> <v72kp6$k3b1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v738db$mjis$14@dont-email.me> <v756r9$15qot$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7614g$19j7l$11@dont-email.me> <v77qm6$1ntfr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:14:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f64513aa3f157d417bd9d336ffe725cf";
	logging-data="1945731"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19xpdIvaLAs3QSKWJn1hW6e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VGp30yChN39XLtuts1+FU2z113c=
In-Reply-To: <v77qm6$1ntfr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4666

On 7/17/2024 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-16 14:46:40 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/16/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-15 13:32:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/15/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-14 14:48:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance
>>>>>> then your disagreement has no actual basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
>>>>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
>>>>>> with arithmetic.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lame analogy. A better one is: 2 + 3 = 5 is a proven theorem just
>>>>> like the uncomputability of halting is.
>>>>
>>>> The uncomputability of halting is only proven when the problem
>>>> is framed this way: HHH is required to report on the behavior
>>>> of an input that was defined to do exactly the opposite of
>>>> whatever DDD reports.
>>>
>>> No, it is proven about the halting problem as that problem is.
>>
>> Which is simply a logical impossibility
> 
> Yes, a halting decider is a logical impossibility, as can be and has
> been proven.
> 

If it is a logical impossibility then it places no
actual limit on computation otherwise we would have
"the CAD problem" of the logical impossibility of making
a CAD system that correctly draws a square circle.

"The halting problem" does have some practical applications
in that is can be used to detect denial of service attacks.
My system does work correctly for that.

>> thus no actual limit to computation more that this logical impossibility:
>> What time is it (yes or no)?
> 
> As construction of a halting decider is already known to be impossible
> why would anyone care whether there is other limitations about it?
> 
> And of course the impossibility of halting decider prevents any applicaions
> of it, for example as a tool to solve other problems.
> 

Only because we have framed the problem as a logical impossibility.
When we re-frame the problem so that it is not a logical impossibility
then the practical applications can still be derived.

>> *This is isomorphic the HP decider/input pair*
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? 
>> (Hehner:2018:2)
> 
> Perhaps you can use the isomorphism to proove that Carol can't.
> But that should be faily easy anyway.
> 

Carol's question is isomorphic to the halting problem
decider/input pair showing that the halting problem is
simply a cheap trick.

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