Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis --- INFALLIBLY CORRECT REASONING
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 09:07:57 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <vgl9gd$37h38$8@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me>
 <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org>
 <vfqsui$1jg6i$2@dont-email.me> <vft4om$44tc$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vft944$25aio$6@dont-email.me>
 <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org>
 <QU2dnTAfup30Rr_6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vfvnml$2ll12$1@dont-email.me> <vfvujg$2mcse$6@dont-email.me>
 <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me> <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg4va2$3ok87$1@dont-email.me> <vg55lv$3pnvp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg7sdl$cbfk$1@dont-email.me> <vg83vt$dri5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgcmu4$1eurt$1@dont-email.me> <vgd5vl$1hqli$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgfv31$25h28$1@dont-email.me> <vgg1qh$26126$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgi2t6$2js8i$1@dont-email.me> <vgiqgt$2nkqv$2@dont-email.me>
 <b9a0d5ce3b7042113a97b55efdc04186959cb401@i2pn2.org>
 <vgk20t$31qrg$1@dont-email.me>
 <04def3c05242c3bfd2b2010509675214e9874696@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 16:07:58 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c2fa6bf0e4c95fa4383978e96b35b7f1";
	logging-data="3392616"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193wLpRYTcW15gp4J+QPpAm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:paiKq7h0wvFNXNWXGT1L5VoYtbc=
In-Reply-To: <04def3c05242c3bfd2b2010509675214e9874696@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241108-6, 11/8/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 5646

On 11/8/2024 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/7/24 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/7/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/7/24 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/7/2024 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-11-06 15:26:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/6/2024 8:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-11-05 13:18:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-03 15:13:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-02 12:24:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH does compute the mapping from its input DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the actual behavior that DDD specifies and this
>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES INCLUDE HHH emulating itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes but not the particular mapping required by the halting 
>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is the particular mapping required by the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>> The exact same process occurs in the Linz proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting probelm requires that every halt decider terminates.
>>>>>>>>> If HHH(DDD) terminates so does DDD. The halting problmen requires
>>>>>>>>> that if DDD terminates then HHH(DDD) accepts as halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No that is false.
>>>>>>>> The measure is whether a C function can possibly
>>>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not in the original problem but the question whether a particular 
>>>>>>> strictly
>>>>>>> C function will ever reach its return instruction is equally 
>>>>>>> hard. About
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has always been about whether or not a finite string input
>>>>>> specifies a computation that reaches its final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really. The original problem was not a halting problem but 
>>>>> Turing's
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. The actual Halting Problem was called that by Davis
>>>> in 1952. Not the same as Turing proof.
>>>>
>>>> *So we are back to The Halting Problem itself*
>>>>
>>>> has always been about whether or not a finite string input
>>>> specifies a computation that reaches its final state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it has always been about trying to make a computation that given 
>>> a finite string representation of a program and input, decide if the 
>>> program will halt on that input.
>>>
>>
>> It has never ever been about anything other than the actual
>> behavior that this finite string specifies. You are not stupid
>> or ignorant about this your knowledge and intelligence has
>> seemed pretty good. What you and others are is indoctrinated.
> 
> But it always has been. From your favorite source, the Halting problem 
> is stated as:
> 
> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an 
> input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.
> 

The behavior specified by the finite string input.
Never the behavior specified by any damn non-input.

DDD emulated by each HHH that can possibly exist
cannot possibly reach its own final state and halt
even of God commands it.

You know this is true and try to get away with changing
the subject.

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